host: cynthia reilly thank you. on the program tomorrow we will analyze issues from this week's debate. also looking forward to next tuesdays debate. we'll talk about the math how noncitizens impact the vote each state is allocated. then at 9: 15 we'll here about the cuben missile crisis that and your phone calls tomorrow on "washington journal" which starts at 7:00 a.m. we'll see you then. [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> see the second presidential debate, a town hall format, tuesday, live on c-span, seized and radio, and c-span.org. next, a debate in the massachusetts senate race, and then a debate between the candidates running for u.s. senate in arizona. after that, david korn talks about his role in the release of the videotape in which presidential candidate mitt romney talks about the 47% of americans. senators scott brown and elizabeth warren based off wednesday in the third of the four televised debates. in 2010, scott brown defeated martha coakley in a special election for the post held by the late ted kennedy for almost 47 years.

this debate is courtesy of -- >> good evening. welcome to symphony hall for a debate between scott brown and elizabeth warren. i am honored to be the moderator tonight. we have rules this evening. our audience of more than 2600 guests have agreed to be silent. no interruptions or applause. each candidate has a minute and 30 seconds to answer each question, and 30 seconds for rebuttal. later, each candidate gets one minute for a closing statement. a coin toss has determined the speaker order. we have received more than 200. every question is based on an idea from the public. elizabeth warren won the first

coin toss. just last week, we saw the national unemployment numbers fall below 8%. millions of americans are still looking for jobs. things are especially difficult for minority cities. what will it take and what will you do if elected to support job growth? >> thank you very much. thank you for everyone for being so hospitable. we have nearly 200,000 people unemployed in massachusetts. there are higher unemployment rates here in springfield. it is a serious problem. i look at this as a short-term and long-term problem. short-term, they should put people back to work.

i was surprised when senator brown of voted against a three in a row that would have supported 22,000 jobs here in the commonwealth of massachusetts, would have prevented layouts, and policei n officers, it would have put construction workers back to work. why? it would have been an increase in taxes, not for most people, but for those who make a million dollars or more. making the investments in education, making the investments in research, and we make those investments together and build a future. that is what it will take over the long run to build a stronger future here in western

massachusetts, all across the commonwealth, and all across the country. >> thank you. before i start, i want to thank the mayor for your endorsement and support. thank you both for coming. this is actually about jobs and economy. the whole race is about that. we held one of our first jobs fares here because we want to connect people with jobs. when you put a title on a bill in washington that says jobs bill, you have to read the bill. those bills in particular were rejected in a bipartisan manner, and that means democrats and republicans recognize that by taking for under $50 billion in taxes out of the private sector and giving it to washington to increase government spending, that is not the answer. the best answer is to come and put the money in the communities. i went down there today and he did not say, thank you for coming. please take this money and bring

it back to washington. he said, go back to washington and tell them they need a reality check. we are tired of the overspending and the taxing and taking more money out of the economy. there are real challenges here. i used to live here. i worked and i lived over there. i understand. many businesses are hurting right now. regulatory tax uncertainty is the biggest challenge they have. >> tomorrow will be the one- year anniversary of senator brown's first vote against 22,000 jobs here in massachusetts. i hope everybody who knows someone who is unemployed, every business who would like to see those paychecks to spend in their shops, will remember that. that is how we jump-start the economy. we get work that needs to be done, and we put people back to work.

the bill would have cost millionaires, those making $1 million or more, pay more. he stood with the millionaires and not those out of work. >> you have 35 seconds. >> it is the anniversary of the protecting people's pocketbooks and wallets. i'm making sure $450 billion did not go out of the private sector in into washington so they could spend it. you need to create the regulatory tax certainty. when i am fighting for military jobs and trying to create the ability for them to stay in business, i am very proud my third vote was a bipartisan jobs bill. we need to do it better. >> next question goes to mr. brown. depending on what happens on election day, it is entirely possible the numbers will be set up in such a way in january

that both houses are set up by the republican party. it seems to me in the repeal of obamacare. it is further escalating costs and hospitals and physicians. it is a problem of fraud, but hard to catch and investigate. what do we do about the continuing health-care cost problem. would you support a replacement of fee-for-service to help try to reduce the rising costs? >> health care is something that affects every person in every business in massachusetts. i was proud to work on our health care bill that actually insures 98% of our people. we did it without raising taxes and we did it without the one- size-fits-all.

the federal bill, which my opponent supports and i do not, raises taxes. the folks that have the so- called cadillac tax plans, the teachers, they will be taxed tens of thousands of dollars. i believe everybody should have health care. that is why i supported what we did here in massachusetts. i think other states should be incentivized. to think the federal government will tell massachusetts where we have the best doctors in the world, that is unacceptable.

the codes changed regularly. there really is no certainty and stability. it is something we need to continue to work on. >> 90 seconds. >> you are right about the control of the senate. scott brown has made it clear his first job will be to repeal the affordable care act. i do not think that is good for us. he raises the same old argument that there will be more than $700 billion taken out of medicare. that is the same playbook mitt romney used a week ago tonight. it was wrong then and it is wrong tonight. [applause] it is not money being taken out of medicare. aarp has made this clear. the plan is to take waste fraud out and strengthen medicare. keep in mind what senator brown

is in favor of, is getting rid of a bill that helps seniors' right now pay for prescription drugs, closes the so called on a whole. 11,000 seniors here in massachusetts are getting help, paying for their prescription medications. there is a lot that the affordable care act does, and it brings down health care costs. also, investments at a lot of research. i am proud to be from massachusetts where most of the research is being done. this will be a big driver for the economy here in massachusetts and ultimately for saving health-care around the country. >> you have 30 seconds. >> thank you. the bottom line is any of the seniors that are listening in the crowd, you need to pay attention. it is two quarters of a trillion dollars that my opponent is supporting and i do not. to think you can cut that amount money and not have it affect your care and coverage is wrong.

to think the federal government will dumb down what we did here in massachusetts, that is not something i can support. we have an opportunity in massachusetts. this is a jobs-crushing bill. you have 18 new taxes coming in. i cannot support it. >> 7 extra seconds. >> senator brown will double down on a number that simply is not true. aarp has made it clear that the changes the affordable care act as for medicare strengthens medicare and does not cut benefits by even one penny. senator brown wants to talk about taxes. keep in mind there is only $1 trillion in tax cuts in the affordable care act. it comes to people who are purchasing health insurance and the small businesses that are

providing health insurance. it is good for us. >> college debt for the students and families. we know it tops $1 trillion. higher education is the largest industry in massachusetts. the number means a lot to us. what would you do and what more can and should washington do if anything to address the soaring cost of college debt students face. >> i went to public schools and a commuter college. i ended up as a professor. i got to do that because of the opportunities afforded me by a good education that america invested in. now we live in a world where there is far too little investment, and is typically in higher education. there are four great community colleges in this area. we need to be making the investments in the community colleges. for a couple of reasons.

partly because it is a good, affordable way for kids to get an education. partly because it helps us build a future. persistent technology here in western massachusetts, this is a real opportunity for the future. only if there is a well-educated work force. that starts and home school, on into community colleges, and on into universities. i want to say this is about priorities. that is how i see it. there will not be a single, magic bullet. what the priorities. students will have to pick up more of the costs of student loans. twice, senator brown voted to let students rates double. why? it would have forced to pay for it closing a loophole used by millionaires. it is called the newt gingrich loophole. what are your priorities? protecting loopholes for

millionaires or college education? >> great question. the cost of education is out of sight. we need to have an educated student population. my youngest daughter graduated. i understand. one of the largest driving forces behind the high cost of education is administrative costs. professor war makes about $350 thousand to teach a course. she got a zero interest loan and gets perks. it is interesting. kids are forced to go out and borrow money at a high interest rate. then harvard goes and gets a zero interest loan to the professors. that is one of the driving forces behind the high costs of education. that, energy, health care. if you are paying for health care for students, it has gone up as a result of obamacare to

about $1,500. we have done a lot with providing benefits for our students. we need to continue to do that. there she goes again with regard to talking about student interest rates. i voted against it because i did not want to see small business owners pay $60 billion to pay for low interest rates. we stopped it and we worked and rolled up our sleeves and did it without taxing people and using any additional federal funds. >> i went to a commuter college. i paid $50 a semester for tuition. i am proud to have made it to where i have made it in my profession. let's be clear. i paid $50 a semester because america was investing in public colleges and universities at the time. that is what we need to do. [applause]

the question about voting is, what side are you on? i want to go with our kids. >> we actually passed that bill to keep student interest rates low. we did it by working together in a truly bipartisan way to get it done. she says millionaires and billionaires. no, it is the ordinary businesses that would have had to pay that $6 billion to keep student interest rates low. we did it together. we found the money. it is my leadership working with both sides to get that done. >> i will remind the audience, it only takes time away from your candidates when you applaud. please do not. let's stay with education. communities are stretching and

struggling to pay for local schools. many costs are based on a federal mandates and requirements. what should the role of the federal government be in local education? >> i work very hard to provide the tools and resources to our community to get funding for new schools and i am proud of that. very supportive of the new issues that are been initiated. we are doing a lot and i never voted for a mandate. it is one of the things that is killing communities like springfield and everybody in western massachusetts and throughout our great state. it is the high cost of education that is driving the train. just go back because i have time, student interest rates, the bottom line is that you

cannot rewrite my record. we made sure we did without raising taxes. constant criticisms on the fact that i do not want to raise taxes on many americans. we did it without raising taxes by tweaking federal programs. i worked very hard as a state senator and continue to work with the community college. we found at a community college that you have opportunities where businesses in the area are working directly with the university to develop a work force you can actually have for that particular business. that is something i have supported and will continue to support. >> thank you. 90 seconds. >> you were asking about what we would do for the younger kids and education. it is a wonderful question. i am proud to be from massachusetts. we have made investments in education and our kids have done

well. they have not done as well if we think they can if we do better. the way i see this is that massachusetts, the local cities and towns, should come up with their own ideas, but they need a good federal partner in washington. i will give you one example of what a good federal partner can do. a good federal partner can put money into stem and mathematics. to help make sure we have more teachers and schools, make sure they have the opportunities to get the grounding they need to go on to community college, get better training, and be part of the well-educated work force. moving down to younger kids, i want to make clear that every dollar we invest is something that pays off many times over

that child's lifetime. it is an investment we should be making. we need to invest in our children. that is our moral responsibility and it is good economics. >> we agree. it is something i feel is very important. growing up from here, i have been working very hard as a state representative and state senator to try to find ways we can do it all and provide good value for our dollar, accountability for our students and teachers, having parental involvement, and trying to find ways to stretch the dollars we paid to state and federal government. there is a lot more to do. we will hopefully continue the work. >> that is time. you have 30 seconds. >> i am glad senator brown agrees.

i want to make clear that if the republicans take over control of the united states senate, they have made it clear that in order to pay for the tax cuts for the richest americans, they will make cuts elsewhere. what is the only proposal on the table? more than half a trillion dollars in cuts in education, basic infrastructure, and research. to have a good, federal partner in washington, we have to make funding education a priority. >> this question goes to elizabeth warren. can you tell us where you would look first and last? can you identify two federal programs that can be cut, and two he would work hard to protect? >> you are exactly right. we will have to take a balanced approach. i would be clear in terms of cutting the agricultural subsidy programs. it is time to cut in our

military budget. we are winding out of one war. we can realign our priorities. on the other hand, i want to make clear i will not go to washington to cut medicare or social security benefits. [applause] when we talk about a balanced approach, we need to be talking about spending cuts and we need to be talking about increasing revenues. it takes both to close the deficit. we both submitted our economic proposals to the boston globe. they were sent out four independent economic analysis. what the independent economists found is that i was 67% more effective at cutting the deficit then senator brown. why? because i am willing to make cuts. i am willing to make substantial cuts. i support substantial cuts.

i also believe we have to raise revenues. that is what it will take to get serious about our deficit. i truly believe on this one, this is about our children and grandchildren. we cannot leave it to our grandchildren to pay off our debts. >> great question. we are in the $16 trillion national debt. we are in another trillion dollar deficit. you cannot keep borrowing to pay our bills. when we are talking about cutting military spending, we have party cut in half a trillion dollars. that affects many people in this room and people watching. i have been battling as a member of the arms services committee to try to find the resources to protect our men and women who are serving. we have sequestration coming up. we are trying to work in a bipartisan effort to step back from that. i cut $2 trillion as a result

of obamacare. it is not good for massachusetts. crushes businesses. i would sell unused property. we do not need it. i would do a top to bottom review of every program. if there is anybody listening who thinks my opponent is a tax cutter, let me get rid of that myth. i never voted for a tax increase. i would not be raising taxes on any american. we need to have a balanced budget amendment. it is something we need. we do it in the state, homes, businesses. that is a big difference. the first thing, every single time, is to raise taxes. the national federation of independent businesses said many people in this room would be affected by the cuts in her plan. i would not be putting the businesses of individuals and their lives in jeopardy. >> senator brown says he will cut health care. keep in mind, that is scored as

it is going to increase our debt and not decrease it. he cites a study, the same thing out of governor romney's strategy. he was wrong then and he is wrong now. it does not analyze anything i did. it does not use the president's. keep in mind to this group is. can i finish? >> 10 more seconds. >> this group endorses senator brown and other republicans and refers to ted kennedy as public enemy number one. that is who they are. >> that is 15. but 45 seconds. >> if anybody thinks the national health care bill is not going to be back for massachusetts, they do not understand the bills. they have not read the bills. it dramatically increases 18 new taxes. medical device companies in massachusetts will be first.

our seniors would medicare will be hammered in the coverages and care they get in hospitals. when you look at the chamber of commerce, is the premier independent group. she says the numbers were made up here they are not made up. it was said her involvement in this race is catastrophically anti-business. we cannot continue to focus on raising taxes. >> thank you both very much. in both the presidential and did your campaigns, i have heard the words "middle class" used a lot.

what do you mean? income levels, values? >> i do not think it is values. it is in comes. i have worked hard to get property valuations and get could trash, please, and fire contracts. trying to maximize the dollars we all pay. i think about hard-working men and women who have one, two, or a third job. what do you mean? income levels, values? sometimes kids contribute. the number of areas in which state you are at. the bottom line is is all about whose side you're on. we know professor warren has said she is fighting for you and the middle class. she is fighting in fact for the large corporations, travels insurance, giving almost a quarter of a million dollars, fighting to deny people benefits for asbestos settlements. fighting to protect large corporations over the union workers who are going to get their health care. also, dodd chemical, working to make sure there is limited liability for women with faulty breast implants. it is about whose side you're

on. it is about fighting for the middle class. i want to continue as i have before. one thing we cannot be doing right now in the middle of this recession is by taking more money out of people's are working pocketbooks and wallets and giving it to the federal government. they are like pigs in a trough. they will take and take and take. sometimes kids contribute. [applause] >> i am losing control. >> this has been my life's work. let's face it. america's middle class has been getting hammered. washington does not work for them. they work for those who can hire and an army of lobbyists and lawyers. that is why i am in this race. what is america's middle-class tax the people who work hard and play by the rules, and invest in the future. they believe if they do those things, their kids are going to have a better chance than they

did and their grandkids are going to have a better chance than that. that is what i see as the two different missions in this race overall. the race in massachusetts and the race nationally. the republicans have a vision. cut taxes for those at the top and let the chips fall where they may for everybody else. i think we can do better for that. we can do better than that for america's middle-class and working families, and america's poor families who want those opportunities. i believe everybody pays a fair scared. that means the millionaires. that means the billionaires. that means the big oil companies. [applause] then we make those investments in the future. we invest in education, infrastructure, we invest in ourselves and our kids. that is why those of the issues i want to talk about in this race. senator brown does not want to talk about his voting record. he just wants to launch attacks.

thank you. >> it is about whose side you were on. when you are talking about getting hammered, i suggest you put down the hammer. it is your regulations and your policies that will be hurting. audience: boo! >> we will give you a couple extra seconds. >> your policies will be hurting middle-class families and every class of family in the united states. you have massachusetts lobbyists working for you. in terms of an army of lawyers, you are one of them. you went out and got paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to fight against -- >> that is time. 40 seconds. >> i am glad you raised the question of regulations. he is right. i went to washington to fight to make sure people cannot get cheated on mortgages, credit

cards, and state loans. that is what i fought for. that agency, just out there a year on its own, and it has already returned nearly half a billion dollars to consumers who have gotten cheated. i think that is the way the system ought to work. i will continue to fight for that. >> i will give you each 15 seconds. >> i commend you for your work on that. i voted for it. it never would have passed it by was not the deciding vote. audience: boo! [applause] >> i actually made it better. we put in a provision to protect our men and women's measures. i commend you for that. i'm glad i was able to help put it into effect.

>> it came out in the boston globe he was out working in secret to weaken the regulations so the biggest financial institutions on wall street would not have to deal with such difficult regulations. i think this is one more case of senator brown making it clear where he stands. he has taken more than $2 million in contributions, and he really delivers for wall street. >> i owe you five seconds, senator. >> i would like to start right now. >> i am finding it. >> i will fight for massachusetts jobs. the company she is referring to that i was fighting for, i was proud to do it. >> perfect. back on time. i will give everybody who is watching the time about two seconds to take a breather. let's go. where would you stand if the idea of eliminating the

mortgage increased tax deduction were put forward as part of a tax reform or deficit reduction? >> i would not support ending the mortgage deduction for middle-class families. they have been hammered enough and they just cannot take it. my answer is for working people, no. >> reset. >> i am sorry. >> you have a minute. >> you are asking the right question. where are we going to raise revenues? what senator brown has done is take the pledge, making sure he has said he will not raise taxes by $1, on millionaires, billionaires, big oil. that exactly is what he has voted for. asking billionaires to pay their fair share, he voted no.

the industry where the big five made $137 billion in profits last year, senator brown said keep those subsidies flowing to the oil companies. for me, what this is all about is we have to find the right balance in the system. we have to go to a sensible place. when the question comes of the aspiring tax credits, so taxes could go up for 98% of the families here in massachusetts, and 97% of small businesses, senator brown said he voted against that, would let taxes go up, unless there were bigger breaks for the top 2%. this is about whose side you stand on. >> 90 seconds. >> i am glad i am agreed with. we should not raise taxes on anybody in the middle of a recession.

i will not be raising taxes on any one in massachusetts or anyone in the united states. we are in a fiscal and financial emergency right now. we do not need to do every single time, say take, take, take more and more. we have our own buffett rule in massachusetts. we have an opportunity for people who want to pay more. they can. professor warren chose not to check that box and make that contribution. it is ok to take everybody else's money, but before we do that, we need to practice what we preach. when you talk about oil and our energy producers, i am not sure anybody has been to the pump. it is about $4 a gallon. if you think by eliminating deductions or raising taxes on our energy producers in the middle of the winter, they will pass those tax increases off to you. you will be paying more as you fill up your car, your oil tanks, and we need to have a

comprehensive reform. we need to do a review of our tax code. we cannot be pitting people against each other. it needs to be done in a bipartisan manner. i have done it. i will continue to do it. i am proud. >> 30 seconds. >> i think i heard senator brown say that instead of working for the people of massachusetts, he has taken a pledge to work for grover norquist to make sure no tax still occurs that costs millionaires or billionaires even $1 more. what he has said he will do is let more than $2 trillion of tax cuts expire for 90% of families in massachusetts. it is not enough of a big break on billionaires.

>> the 2% of the people out there creating jobs. many of the people are hired by those job creators. it makes a great sound bite. but those aspiring tax cuts will only fund the government for 10 or 15 days. we need a comprehensive approach on this. >> very good. how do you feel you differ from your opponent in the area of women's rights and women's issues? specifically, paycheck fairness act, states that have moved and tried to require special preliminaries procedures for women who need to be seeking medical procedures. >> good question. i live in a house full of women. two of them are right there.

they have been fighting since i have been fighting since i was 6 years old to protect women's rights. we are both pro-choice. i believe in women getting the same pay and benefits. as you have heard, when you refer to paycheck fairness, right idea but the wrong bill. when it comes to women's rights, i am pro-choice. i am a co-sponsor of the violence against women act because i have lived through that. it is important to protect women, especially when they are being abused.

make sure they can get the care and coverage is they need. when it comes to protecting women's rights, i am happy to continue to fight, as i have done in the past. you can cherry pick votes and try to distort things. the botte am very happy with what i have done. >> that is time. 90 seconds. >> i have no doubt that senator brown is a good husband and a good father to his daughters. this is an issue that affects all of our daughters and their granddaughters. what matters here is how senator brown votes. he has gone to washington and he has had good votes. he has had exactly one chance to vote for equal pay for equal work, and he voted no. he had exactly one chance to vote for insurance coverage for birth control and other preventive services for women. he voted no.

he had one chance to vote for a pro-choice woman from massachusetts to the united states supreme court, and he voted no. those are bad votes for women. the women of massachusetts need a senator they can count on, not some of the time, but all of the time. [applause] i want to go to washington to be there for all of our daughters and granddaughters. this one really matters. there is a lot at stake. >> you have another 20 seconds. >> i think that says it all. i am a mother of a daughter and a grandmother of granddaughters. this is about their future. i want to be blunt. we should not be fighting about equal pay for equal work and access for birth control in 2012. [applause] these issues were resolved years ago, until the republicans brought them back.

>> that is time. 30 seconds. >> we are both pro-choice. we are both working very hard. i think we would agree on that fact. i will not be pitting catholics against their church and their faith. i will fight to make sure any legislation that comes up is not going to be basically prohibiting people to practice their faith. we did it in massachusetts. we already have the ability to do both. we actually provide care and coverages women deserve, and we provide the ability for people in churches and hospitals to practice their faith. >> time. i apologize for any confusion. you will have 40 seconds. >> i just want to be clear. this is how the senator votes. he comes up with a lot of

excuses. he had one chance to vote for equal pay for equal work any voted against it. he had one chance to vote for insurance coverage on birth control and he voted against it. he had one chance to vote for a pro-choice woman to the united states supreme court, and he voted against her. these votes matter. roe vs. wade may hang in the balance. access to birth control and equal pay for equal work, women are entitled to these. this is not right. >> i did not have a chance to respond. i hope she proves me wrong. she did not have a traditional court experience as a prerequisite. "the boston globe" and united chamber of commerce said the right idea, the wrong bill. you need to read the bill. to give people an early christmas to allow them to hurt small businesses, i will not do it.

>> it is like it was with the millionaires, billionaires, and oil companies. he has a lot of excuses for standing on the other side. when it came down to it in critical votes, he was not there for women. massachusetts women deserve a senator they can count on all the time. [applause] >> that this time. thank you. mitt romney now wants a larger role for the united states in syria. he would like to see as helping and working with others to supply rebels with arms. what should we do about syria and what american involvement and intervention would you support to prevent iran from developing a nuclear weapon. >> what he is a link to his own people is terrible. it has to stop. he has to go. in iran, what is critical is they are not permitted to develop nuclear weapons. they are a danger to the region,

our ally israel, and they are a danger to the entire world. with a nuclear iran, we not only have the risks of more terrorists getting access to nuclear weapons, more people in the region one nuclear weapons, it is destabilizing to the world. it means the whole world has an interest in making sure that they do not develop nuclear weapons. that is why i support the approach that has been used by president obama. that is he takes nothing off the table when he goes in. but he comes in and tries to work with other countries in order to bring pressure, in order, in this case, to put economic sanctions in place. in the case of syria, to provide support that we think is appropriate. i think the president is doing the right thing. he is cautious, he is measured,

but he is firm. that is what we need when dealing with that part of the world. i just want to say i am really glad to support president obama as commander in chief, and i do not want to see mitt romney in that job. >> that is time. >> i said on the armed services committee. [applause] homeland, and veterans. i want to make sure our soldiers have the tools and resources to do their jobs and do them well and come home. if they are not well, we need to get them in the veterans administration. elizabeth warren wants to cut. we cannot allow iran to have nuclear weapons. i agree with you on that. i have been working to make an effort to destabilize the currency of the central bank in iran. the sanctions we have done are

good but we need to have the president implement them. when it comes to syria, assad does need to go. we need to work with moderates in opposition and provide them with military hardware and support financially so they can do battle. the citizens there, they are being slaughtered by the thousands. when it comes to libya, i thought what happened there is unacceptable. i thought the handling of it was unacceptable. we need to have a full and immediate investigation to make sure we find out what happened. more importantly, iran, my opponents said earlier we need a nuanced approach. there is no such thing. there is only one person who will stand with israel. >> another 30 seconds. >> i have three older brothers, all of whom served in the military. my oldest brother was career military. he served in vietnam. i have some sense of not only

how tough and capable they are. that is why i believe the best we can do for our military is be very careful and thoughtful about when we ask them to go to war. we need to have clear objectives. we need to know what our plan is and how we plan to get out. >> you can take up to 40. >> we have the greatest fighting force in the history of the world. our men and women who have served have done a remarkable job. i saw what the soldiers were doing. when duty calls, they are there. i am very proud of that. we need to make sure we provide them with the tools and resources. when they are dealing with what is happening over there, it is

troubling. we need to make sure we can work with leaders over there who will give our embassy personnel the right information. i am not sure that was done in libya. >> another question. brac, the base realignment and closure process, could call for cuts for many defense related programs in massachusetts. if that happens, where would you stand for cuts to trim the deficit, or to prefer pentagon spending and jobs provided for the economy in massachusetts? >> great question. i am still serving in the national guard. i have been there in that capacity. and as a senator, making sure we can provide a good analysis as to what is going on. provide them with the toolsthe jobs are. we have a strong defense

industry in massachusetts. we need to make sure we can protect them, as well. it will be a challenge. i worked on the first base closure when i was a state senator. i have been fighting and working now, meeting with the personnel. industry in massachusetts. also, at the air force base. to make sure we provide them. as a ranking member of armed services and having the ability to meet with these people and get the information and battle in a consistent basis for them, i am looking forward to that opportunity. as you know, especially, they have a mission where their proficiency is so much better than the active forces, and to think we will put that in jeopardy because a political agenda, i will not do it. we both want to support our military. i would argue that based on my experience, i have the ability to do better. that is not the onlyalso, at th. challenge when you are talking about stretching the almighty dollars. we earn a financial emergency. we need to take an approach where we can put everything on the table, looking at the top to bottom review.

trying to make sure we can do the best with what we have. >> 90 seconds. >> here is the problem. we both want to protect the military. we have a big deficit. when senator brown and other republicans take the grover norquist pledge, and they say they will not raise money for millionaires and billionaires, they will not close the oil subsidies, what they are saying is they are just not serious about cutting the deficit, bringing the budget back into alignment. that means we will trigger across-the-board cuts. those cuts for the military is the worst possible way we could go. it is bad for the country. it is that for us here in massachusetts. here is why. it keeps lopping off 10%, 15%. we need to use this opportunity to think about the military we need going forward in the 21st century. here is what i am prepared to do. i am prepared to get out there

and fight, to talk about what the c5 galaxy means. this is the place where we have giant planes and take big groups and big equipment and have disaster relief all run the world. that is why there should not be a penny of cuts there. the cuts need to be in places like the standing army. we do not need the same size standing army as we did when we were fighting two wars. what we need to do is we need to get serious. put it on the table, including revenues. that is how we get serious. that is how we protect our military. size>> that is time. another 30 seconds. >> great sound bites, but when you are talking about a military personnel, i have been doing it for 2.5 years. working with all of our military bases. i have visited there. i know what the missions are. it would be devastating to lose those services in massachusetts.

you said you want to cut more military money. you cannot have it both ways. you cannot cut military and protect the c5's. cannot do both. to think we will do it in any other way by taxing and spending against our job creators, it will not happen. >> 37 seconds. >> that is time. >> senator brown just ran on this. as long as we do not bring the budget into balance, there will be across the board cuts. that is what will hurt us in massachusetts. that is what will hurt us in our military bases and the investments we make in research and development. we need to get more revenue on the table and get serious about reshaping our military budget. it is no longer about a big standing army. it is about making the investments that we need in the future. cyber security, research and development, and the c5. >> that is all the time we have.

we have no time for questions. closing statements. a coin toss determined mr. brown will be first. one minute and 30 seconds. >> thank you. thank you for the folks who are watching. thank you for your support and endorsement, mayor. i want to say, aside from my marriage of 26 years and the birth of my kids come up being at your senator is the greatest honor i could ever have. there are many challenges here. after the tornado, i was here. i am continuing to work with the mayor and his team to get reimbursements to fight to make sure we can get springfield and the surrounding areas back on their feet. as somebody who has been working very hard in a truly bipartisan manner to get things done, i am trying to work together to get things done. this is a time where i need your vote.

i am asking for your support. this is a critical election. let me further say that when we are talking about taxes and jobs and spending, the first thing out of anybody's mouth who is running in this race, professor warren in particular, is that we need to raise taxes. we need to take your hard- earned money and give it to washington. we cannot. we need to work together in a bipartisan manner. i have been doing it. she referenced somebody the other day who she would work with. he goes 80% with his party. i am at 54%. i cannot do this alone. i would appreciate your vote. thank you. [applause] >> please, we are very short on time. one minute and 30 seconds. >> this afternoon, i was driving in the car with bruce. we were driving along the same road and same car became this

summer when we drove out to the peak with our granddaughters. we climbed on all sorts of things and drove fast on the mountain. it was a reminder to me of what this race is about. for me, this is about our children and about our grandchildren. there are two very different visions of how we build a future for them. senator brown and the republicans believe we do that by cutting taxes for those at the very top and then we let everybody else pick up the pieces. i believe we can do better than that. we must do better than that. i believe everybody pays a fair share. even millionaires, billionaires, and even big oil companies. when everybody pays a fair share, we can all make the investments in the future. we have to invest in education for our children. our public universities, public schools, we have to make those investments to have an educated

workforce and a real future. we have to make the investments in infrastructure. we see it in western massachusetts. those investments are what is going to create our future. we have to invest in research. that is what it is about for me. i am asking for your vote so that together we can build a real future for all of our children and grandchildren. [applause] >> thank you very much. please. i have about 15 seconds to say thank you for the springfield public forum, all of the members for making this possible, a great big thanks to a senator scott brown and to elizabeth warren for coming and spending time with us. it does not matter what you did tonight if you do not get out and vote november 6. thank you for watching. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national

cable satellite corp. 2012] >> senator mccain talks a lot about growth, and that is important, but we have 3% of the world's oil reserves, and we use 25% of the world's oil. what that means is we cannot simply to drill on our way of the problem, and we will not able to deal with the climate crisis if our only solution is to use more fossil fuels that create global warming. we are going to have to come up with alternatives, and that

means the united states government is working with private sector to fund the kind of innovation that we can then export to countries like china who also need energy and are setting up one coal-fired plant a week. we have to make sure we are giving them the energy they need, helping them to create the energy they need. >> you may not have noticed, but we have lights appear, red, green, yellow, and they are signals. >> just tried to keep up with john. >> here is a follow-up to that. it is a simple question. should we find a manhattan-like project to develop a nuclear bomb to do with alternative energy, or should we find 100,000 garages across america, the kind of industry and innovation that developed silicon valley? >> i think your research and development research on the part of the united states government

is certainly appropriate. i think what it gets into productive stages, we ought to obviously, turn it over to the private-sector. >> before president obama and mitt romney face questions from undecided voters, what the first town hall from our archive. president george h. w. bush, bill clinton, and ross perot. next tuesday, watch president obama and mitt romney in their town hall debate. coverage starts at 7:00. >> in arizona, a debate wednesday night for the seat of john kyl. this debate is courtesy arizona

pbs. it is about an hour. >> it is the first debate between candidates for the seat vacated by jon kyl. this is an open exchange of ideas, an opportunity for give- and-take between candidates for one of the state's most important offices. as such, interactions are allowed, provided that all sides get a fair shake and we will do our best to see that that happens.

>> thanks, ted. i am happy to be with you and my colleagues. this is an opportunity -- the fact of the matter is is that over a year ago when my colleagues first approached me, the cops, the firemen and ems personnel, and said there is an open seat, you should run. the first thing i said, is i will run as far away from washington as i can. i have been there. i was not sure i wanted to go back to the dysfunction. the more i thought about it, i realized that we need leadership there. this gridlock has hurt our nation. we have a fiscal cliff. congress has stalled. i have been very fortunate in my life. my mom only wanted one of her kids to graduate from high school. i have been able because of a great country to get an education and go to medical

school, to be a police officer and a professor. that is because we have a country that is full of opportunity. >> your time's up. dr. carmona, we turn to mark victor. >> i'm a person who believes in freedom. i believe in individual rights and individual responsibility. that is why we are a superpower because we have had more freedom relative to other countries. i am not a politician. i say what i think. i do not sugarcoat things. i cannot change my views based on the audience i am in front of. i keep my promises. i am a man of principle. i started my first business at age 17. i am an honorably discharged united states marine. i served in desert storm. i am a criminal defense attorney for 19 years.

i started off my law firm in 2007 and i employ 11 full-time people at my firm. i know what it is like to run a small business. we have strayed far from the principles of limited government. our government taxes and spends out of control and our civil liberties are constantly under attack. we can fix it, but we need to get government back into its cage. >> our final opening statement is from jeff flake. >> good to be here. two days ago, cheryl and i received a wonderful phone call from my son ryan and forming as we are grandparents. aidan was born into a wonderful family, but he was born into $50,000 of debt. his share of the federal debt we all hold. that is why the stakes in this election are so high. we have to have somebody who understands fiscal discipline. that has been my record in the house of representatives, where i fought my own leadership on issues like earmarks. they punish me for it, but i

kept at it and we do not have earmarks any more. that is the kind of attitude i will take to the united states senate. my opponent have a great résume. but a great resume is not a plan. he has been running for a year now and we do not know where he stands on the major issues of the day. we have a choice in this election. we can elect somebody who does not have a plan, will be an echo of the obama administration. or somebody who will continue to be an independent voice for arizona. i would appreciate your vote. >> thank you for your opening statements. let's fine tune things a little bit here. why you and not him? >> happy to have the opportunity. no, my life has been one that has been best exemplified by the infrastructure of opportunity that this nation has. i am a high-school dropout from an immigrant family. i have prospered because of this great infrastructure of opportunity in our nation.

i have been able to serve my country as a physician, a police officer, as a professor, as a teacher. and doing all of those things has allowed me to appreciate how great this nation is. what i want to do is make sure we can preserve this infrastructure of opportunity so every kid can get that american dream. >> what you and not him? >> that is exactly it. that opportunity will not exist unless we get a hold of this $16 trillion debt. that is why we have to have somebody who has a record, who is willing to stand up for that record. that has been my record in the house and that is the record i will take to the senate. it is the same reason, but i see that opportunity slipping away unless we can get this under control. >> why you instead of these two gentlemen? >> the problem here is the republicans and the democrats. the two parties got us into this situation to begin with. we have had republicans in office, republicans controlling the presidency, we get more government. we have democrats, democrats controlling the congress and the

presidency, we get more government. the republicans and democrats are not the solution. they are the problem. they caused the problem. we need a new plan which is an old plan. we need to get back to what our country is about which is freedom, individual rights, free market, limited government. >> let's get into jobs and how the best way to create jobs in arizona, the best way to create jobs in this country. how'd you do that when so few people have jobs and the money to infuse into the economy? >> there are a lot of opportunities at this time. our state is suffering right now. when we look at arizona and the unemployment rate, the housing prices, the fiscal cliff, it's extraordinary. amid all of that, there is opportunity for us to grow. we have to look at this in short-term and long-term. what is it that we can do to

bring jobs right now? what we have to do it is provide incentives to be able to get small business started again. we have to be able to look it infrastructure needs. one of the challenges as i have travelled around the state and i have gone to the old williams air force base. i have gone to the other air force base. i hear from the businessmen, we need infrastructure. what they tell me is, congressman flake is not available because he believes these things are bad. i think we ought to be doing is working with business to create infrastructure to make arizona the most attractive place to live and people will come with their ideas and business will grow. even the mayor of mesa, who is a republic has said to me, we cannot depend on congressman flake. i will be there to provide that help to build infrastructure. >> respond, please. >> i will give him this. he is a quick study. is only been a democrat a year now. the source of jobs in this country is the federal government and not businesses.

this notion that we have to have the federal government to provide incentives for business, what we really need is sure the on taxes and then to get a moratorium on these burdensome regulations that are strangling business in this state. the notion that all we need to do is pick winners and losers like the obama administration has been doing, that is the wrong prescription for arizona. >> is there no place for incentives? >> the best incentives is to allow individuals and businesses to keep their own money and to let the market allocate capital. does it so much better than government does. as governor romney said very effectively the other day, president obama is trying to pick winners and losers. the problem is he is just picking losers. . >> the characterization that the congressman has mentioned is incorrect. what i am saying and i agree with them -- there are many things we agree on.

the fact is is that we need an infrastructure to be able to build our businesses. so when we look at what actually is needed, we need innovators to come here. why would i come here? because there is infrastructure. again, if you look at some of the incubators we have created already, they are dying to be able to have help. congress and flake has pursued this earmarked ideology for a long time. in 12 years we are still struggling. our businessmen tell me that we need help. when you are a senator, you need to work with us. >> just a second. >> he has to respond regarding the year mark situation. you are known for fighting earmarks. >> we do not have the earmarks right now. that is a wonderful thing. businesses in cities and others can compete for federal grants on a merit-based basis rather than by political patron is. that was a terrible system we had, and it is a good riddance.

i am proud of the road i played the role i played. the last thing we need is to go back to the earmark era where politicians in the house and senate are picking winners and losers. that is not what we need. what we need is for the federal government to establish and create an environment where the private sector can flourish. >> talking about earmarks is exactly the kind of craziness we do not need any more. earmarked -- $16 trillion debt. earmarked account for 1/2 of 1% of the federal budget. we are better off, but talking about that is like talking about a drop of water in the ocean. the government does not create jobs. the private sector creates jobs. if you one example, take a look at texas. the people in texas are close to the people in arizona. why and there -- is their economy doing so fantastic?

they are consistently ranked as one of the top state friendly to business. what does that mean? they mean lower taxes, low regulation. and not worry about government trading infrastructure. all the government has to do is get out of the way and let the free market to its thing. >> you have been criticized for not bringing home the bacon, not doing enough to get federal money into arizona. how do you respond? >> most of the earmarks, in the transportation bill. that had 6300 earmarks, including the bridge to nowhere. arizona has been short of for a long time in our transportation largely because of the earmarks, because delegations from donor states will say, we will take a lower formal amount in exchange for a few goodies -- earmarks. that has meant that arizona has only got 90 cents on the dollar rather than $1 for $1. now we're marks are gone and the next authorization bill, arizona will get 95 cents on the dollar. that will mean hundreds of millions of dollars more for the state and a flexible manner.

arizona is far better off. >> let's look at this. the fact of the matter is that all the remarks are not poor. there are necessities the federal government can provide. the congressman has been in congress for 12 years. he has had this ideological streak. it accounts for less than 1% of the budget. it is almost insignificant. his colleagues have figured out other ways to circumvent this. what we are talking about a smart investment in our communities. a republican mayor would reach out to me and say we need your help because congressman flake is unwilling to work with us. this is about infrastructure, this is about the federal government investing in a community and the return on investment will be huge when science and technology and engineering is in the incubators that we have here. >> hold on. >> there is this philosophy again that all jobs have to be treated by the federal government.

that is why dr. carmona is comfortable party in comfortable priority, because that is the attitude of the obama administration -- that is why dr. carmona is comfortable in the democratic party. >> the fact of the matter is, i am not here to defend the obama administration. i have been an independent my entire life. i understand what businessmen are telling me. we need help. we are willing to invest, but we need roads, sanitation, clean water. that is beyond the scope of small business. infrastructure will help entrepreneur is to take risks, to hire people, we will get schools and get economic growth. >> i wonder what the founders of our country would think about this very discussion. i wonder what they would think of the federal government taxing people in arizona and then having our representatives to go to washington and bad for our money back so we can have a road and schools.

is on american. we need to stand up and take a principled stand -- it is unamerican. we need to decide how we spend our money. how about the people who made the money decide how to spend the money for a change? >> dr. carmona misunderstands how federal funding works. he says that earmarks make up less than 1% of funding but acts the way that the only way arizona gets funding is through a earmarked. that is not the case. earmarks influence a lot more than that. it is good riddance to get rid of that. now businesses and municipalities and others can compete for grants where there are federal programs on a merit basis. that is better than political patronage. >> i want to work on to the idea of tax cuts for those making $250,000 or more. what to do with the bush era tax cuts?

>> we have to extend them because we have to protect the poor and middle-class. so the fact is they need to be extended. i would be in favor of protecting the middle class and the poor. i have no problem with somebody like myself paying a little bit more tax now but in order to cut the deal in order to deliver and protect the poor and middle class, i am ok with going to a full extension of the bush tax cuts with a proviso that my colleagues would agree that we stop kicking the can down the road because congress has failed to deliver on tax reform. this shows us that we are in trouble by continuing to kick the can down the road. >> a deal? >> we need to extend the tax cuts. now is not the time to raise taxes. people say this just for people making $250,000 or more. a lot of businesses, our best corporations -- if you tax them more, these are jobs that are not created. dr. carmona seems to have a

position on every side of this issue depending on the audience. i have read of several positions he has taken on this issue. >> how do you respond? >> congressman flake is trying to characterize me as something i am not. i have been an independent all my life. i chose the democratic party because when i looked at the republican party and what congressman flake was doing voting against a veteran benefits, against the combat bonus, when i looked at whether the republican party was denying women access to health care and what they're were doing to seniors and putting them at risk, i could not line up with the republican party because it is not the republicans that were fiscally conservative that i used to know. it is not a perfect fit. but i am being is characterized because he is running from his record. >> one thing i can agree with is that the republican party today has nothing to do with the republicans that used to talk about small government. i know barry goldwater, had he been there, i'm sure if he asked mr. flake about his vote for the

patriot act, i will bet he will roll in his grave. the bush era tax cuts do not do enough. we need to abolish tax cuts -- taxes entirely. barack obama said he did not want to raise taxes on the middle class because the middle class buys cars. so did the rich. the rich spend money, too. the rich are part of the crowd that invest money to create jobs. that is what we need to be doing in america -- cutting everybody's taxes as far as possible. >> we got you. congressman, would you ok $3 in spending cuts for every $1 and revenue? >> you will never get that bargain. i believe there are some republicans who say you go -- if you lower the top tax rate,

that you cannot produce any new revenue for government. i do not believe that. i say if we generate new revenue, then pay down the debt faster, by down the rate further. so i am not one who says he cannot generate any new revenue. there was a question a while ago about and ethanol subsidy that i have been trying to get rid of for years. we finally did. that is about $6 billion. some republicans said if you get rid of that -- it's price revenue neutral. get rid of a bad subsidy. >> to be clear, if it means getting rid of $3 in spending cuts, you have to raise revenue by $1. you are against that? >> you will never see it. every time we get a plan, we do not see the cuts. >> the congressman, what he is accusing me of, not answering the question -- he is not answering the question.

>> i am saying i would not oppose. >> the idea that lower taxes equals growth means more revenue to the government. supply side, laugher curve, what ever you want to call it. valid? >> markets are much more complex than that. i am in agreement mark and with the congressmen that we have to do everything we can to lower tax rates. we have dug ourselves into a hole because of the fiscal irresponsibility of congress. our gdp is exceeded by our debt. the fact is we have to do something about it. so we do not want to raise taxes now because that will push us further into recession but we need to start generating income. economic growth and we have to cut spending. that is what the congressman has said. i'm sure mark feels the same way. >> i would never, ever support raising anybody's taxes. >> for no reason? >> there is absolutely nothing that anybody could say to me that would justify me lining up to say i would invoke the power of government to take money away from my neighbor.

people have the right to the money they earn. we are going off a financial cliff. if we do not do everything it immediately, the republicans and democrats together have taken this country to the brink of financial collapse. we need to cut government by 50% just to get started. >> i have got to keep it moving. what was learned by the great recession? >> well, that you have to have an environment conducive to economic growth and we did not have that. we did not have a situation where private sector could move ahead. the private sector seeks certainty. you have to have certainty on taxes and right now we have certainty on regulations coming up. and we have a lot of that in the great recession as well. if you read "the forgotten man," it is a great tale of why some of the common knowledge about the great recession and how we got out of it had does not square with the facts.

>> said those who say supply- side economics that we had during the bush term, and we've seen that for 30-odd years, that supply-side economics led to or helped lead to the great recession, he would say -- >> no. >> what would you say? >> it is more complex than that. but i think that is a generally true statement. >> the republicans and democrats are continuing to do the same thing they have always done. who is here talking about getting our money back to the sound system? we need to get back on the gold standard. until we have that, we will have the government printing money out of control. we have the congress spending out of control. we are headed for financial disaster unless we have not tinkering around with earmarks, we need to be taing at this table about what departments of the federal government will be

cutting on day one. there is along list. not earmarks. >> doctor, should medicare be reformed, should medicare be eliminated? >> i do not believe it should be eliminated. i think we should keep it but it needs to have an overhaul. the fact is, we are spending 18% of our gdp on health care. but is really sick care. 75 cents of every $1 is spent on chronic diseases. there is a lot we can do it in savings. there is $750 billion wasted in fraud and abuse. people need the help system. if they do not, that was shot in the emergency room and we all pay. having a system that will allow people to appreciate pursuit of optimal health and wellness to drive down the cost of care is going to help us. >> about of voucher system? >> a voucher system i am concerned about i am concerned with -- as it transfers the risk to the patient.

the patient shops for health care. does not drive down the cost. the patient will still drive up costs because they are eating the wrong foods, they are smoking. the cost rises. both parties got it wrong. the costs will continue to rise from 18% of gdp to 25%. >> medicare, what do you think? >> it has to be reformed. we have heard what we have heard throughout this campaign, what somebody referred to as happy talk bromide that absolutely nobody could disagree with. we have to make sure that people have a greater health choices. we are facing a crisis here. medicare as we know what will and unless we reform it. will and for those who are currently in their senior years and it will and for others as well.

what we have done in the house of representatives have put forth a plan -- it is not a voucher plan. it is called premier support for those under 55. will not affect those over age 55. but the doctor will criticize republicans are actually taking a position but he will not offer one of his own. >> the congressman is showing you what it is like to be a chronic politician. he has been there for a dozen years and it is always somebody else's fault. republicans have it right, the democrats have it wrong. both parties have gotten it wrong repeatedly. you have to look at the short term and long term. the big cost drivers are chronic diseases, most of which are preventable. if you forget that, it will keep going up. if you give them a voucher, and you cannot do anything else, the cost of care continues to rise. >> let me addressed -- the crown a politician is one who will not take a position. -- the chronic politician is one who will not take a position. we have taken a position in the house of representatives. but the senate will not even pass a budget.

the senate has not come under democratic control has not passed a budget in three years. >> all i'm saying is the plan they have does not deal with the rising costs. it transfers the risk to the patient. >> he asked, what is your plan? >> short-term there is a lot of fraud and abuse within the system you have to eliminate. you have the go line by line to what the programs are to be able to reduce them. in the long term, you have to -- the public cannot do what they want to do -- smoke, drink excessively, do not wear seat belts. >> respond to this, please. >> there we are again, a statement nobody can disagree with. to put forth a plan, we get criticized for the democrats will not put forward a plan. we know that compromise is essential in washington. the problem is we have put our stake in the ground with the ryan budget.

the senate will not put their own stake in the ground so we can say, here is the middle. perry brought water said that politics is nothing more than business. -- barry goldwater said that politics is nothing more than business. we cannot get dr. carmona's party to put forth a plan. >> he says we have to eliminate fraud. if you think there is a lot of fraud now in the medicare- medicaid world, wait until you see the kind of fraud and corruption in things that are over budget under president obama's healthcare plan. i am going to say something that is on popular because i would rather take a principled stand. number one, there is no support in our federal constitution for the federal government getting involved in anything related to health care.

show me where it is in congress's powers and i will change my mind. number two, involving the federal government and healthcare is one of the worst decisions are country got involved in. we have a situation and we need to move in a way that does not cause harm to our citizens to get out of that situation, but we need to stand up finally in our country, take a principled position that there needs to be our wall of separation between government and health care and government and most things. >> the for care act. how would you have voted? >> the way it is, -- the affordable care act. >> i would not have voted for the way it was. the reason is that i believe it is unsustainable in the long run. i was a surgeon general. as a nation, we could come together and not politicize health care and make sure that all people have access to health care. when we look at adding 32 million people into the system, the way the business plan is set up to take money from doctors and hospitals, they are being threatened.

they are not signing up to take more medicare patients. i would encourage the president -- is a big document. it is complicated. it rolled up too fast. business plan needs more work. i am fully behind the aspiration to ensure that every american has access to basic health care. >> single payer plan? would you be in support of that? >> the fact of the matter is it would not work. we teach that school. will never be able to get it done in this congress. >> the affordable care act. >> i know how you feel. >> we do not know how dr. carmona feels, because when he started this campaign he said he supported it. it is on tape. now he is saying he does not. you have broken new ground because you have gotten him to take a new position tonight. >> the congressmen, again, is mischaracterizing. what i said and what they take out of snippets when they do their videos is that i fully,

100% support care for all. then i would have the provides. here is the problem with the aca. yes, i am a doctor. but people have to participate in the system. they cannot get a car and drive up the cost of care and expect the government to pay for it. >> they have to participate whether they want to participate or not. how does that mesh with what we are about in america? we are free country. the federal government will get involved and say what you like it or not, you are part of the system. everywhere else in the world, this has been tried, every version will result in rationing. we will go from the belt health care on the planet to one of the worst -- the best health care to one of the were. >> this is a new position. dr. carmona has been on each side of this. in 2010, when the democrats took a bath nationwide, according to the fema county recorder's office, dr. carmona did not even vote in the primary or the general election. it is not surprising that we have someone who will not take a

position on most issues and when he does he abandons it soon afterwards. >> that is certainly on this characterization again. the congressman is doing all he can to run from his record. the fact of the matter is, where we need to be spending time is talking about why is the blocking access to health care to women? why is he not supporting our veterans? i am a combat veteran. he voted against the gi, the veterans' benefits. he voted against the transition and the combat -- he voted against many other areas repeatedly. when i looked at his legislative record over the years, i mean, it was reprehensible how he has done so many things. the fact of the matter is he is putting people at risk whether it is social security, medicare, our veterans, and women especially. >> yes? >> especially with women right now because the fact of the

matter is is he who partnered with congressman akin on that bill to define legitimate rape. >> start with a veteran's benefits because we've heard this. i want you to respond. >> you bet. if you been in washington for more than a year, you voted on a thousand pieces of legislation. i voted for more than 100 veterans bills in my time in congress. dr. carmona will pick three or four bills that have veterans and the title that work larded up with extraneous items. one of them, we have funding for the national science foundation who funded a study $150,000 to determine why politicians give a vague answers. that was part of it. to vote for a bill simply because it has a veterans is that -- in the titles is why we have a budget deficit of $1.30 trillion and a $16 trillion debt. >> the question would be, is it worth not getting these benefits to the veterans if it means no more lard? >> what happens is those bills

will be brought right back. they are popular pieces of legislation. people want to support veterans and they should. when this ad ran that claimed that i would deny care for veterans with missing limbs and legs, it did. it showed pictures of them. my father is a korean war veteran. my brother has done two tours in afghanistan, two in iraq. april white, when she saw that ad, she called our office and said that may be sick because when i cannot get the benefits i was due only one person without the and that was jeff flake. >> let's look at the facts. we can stipulate -- my father and uncle served in combat. my brother served 30 years and special forces. that is not the issue. the congressman is trying to evade the issue.

there are three specific bills he voted against those issues. it is not only me. the iraqi-afghanistan veterans organization gave him an f. the vietnam veterans gave him a zero. organizations to follow these things says he voted on the wrong side and the time when our kids need the support the most because they are coming home with traumatic brain injuries and amputations and he voted against it. >> this is part of the problem with politics. everybody is afraid to say, i am in favor of not giving more to veterans. i am a combat veteran. i served under the gi bill. i was happy to do that because i served my country. what i support as a senator everything that's said veteran on it to give more to veterans? no. because we have a job which is to get our spending under control. rather than talking about that, would you want to help the veterans? we need to get out of this ridiculous afghanistan situation. how did we get into this iraq situation. >> we will get to foreign affairs and a second.

senator john mccain, a veteran we all respect, saw that at that dr. carmona ran and said it was deplorable that -- to insinuate that i would deny care of veterans. it is deplorable. >> he can defend it, run from it, have excuses. the fact of the matter is, he voted against it. that is not by me. that is by the veterans' associations i quoted. >> let's move forward with a topic that is always front and center in arizona, and that is immigration. congressman, we had on the program talking about this. you have been criticized for changing your position. is that criticism valid? >> no. we have to have broadbased immigration reform. we have to do more than secure the border. but the reality is in washington for those of us who have worked

on this issue across party lines, worked with senator kennedy on this issue. for 10 years i worked on this issue and hit my head against a brick wall like everyone else. myself, senator jon kyl, senator mccain realize that until we to have border security nobody will trust the of federal government to move ahead on other items. we have to have a border security in the tucson like we have in the yuma sector. >> we hear that alot. what is a secure border look like? when is the border secure enough for reform? >> i can tell you exactly. there is the metrics that is used -- the yuma sector, we have operational control. if an illegal alien crosses the border, we have a reasonable expectation of catching them. that is what we have in the yuma sector. i worked with the democrat who endorsed me who will say that we have operational control. we do not have anything approaching that in the tucson sector. once we get that, we can move on to the other reforms. >> hold on. should we be adopting comprehensive immigration reform now as opposed to waiting for a secure border?

>> we absolutely should, because the fact is i do work on the border as a deputy sheriff. i understand the border better than most. it is not just a theoretical construct. i have been there. that is a dynamic issue. the congressman, trying to take what is happening in yuma and transfer it to tucson sector does not transfer easily. we need to have comprehensive immigration reform and we need it now. the congressman, when it is politically correct, he flips and flops. when he was running his primary, he was off to the right, we only need this control. he had sarah palin and he talked about her endorsement. as soon as the premier was over, he starts moving back to the center. he goes on hispanic television and told them, i will take care of you and do something for you.

he is playing a political game. we need comprehensive immigration reform now. no sense in stalling. >> have to have a secure border. if we have learned anything the last couple of years with the death of brian terry, we need to have other reforms. we have to make sure that our labor needs are met. we have to deal with the humane -- in a humane way with those that are here now. individuals that are here that were brought when there were two years old. it is a complex issue but has to start with border security. >> it is not that complex of an issue. we did not have these kinds of problems many years ago. we came from a place where the statue of liberty was facing outward. we had waves of immigrants who walked into our country and the late 1800's and early 1900's. we did not even have a term illegal immigration. the problems at the border are a

function of the fact that we have not -- we have an ever- increasing welfare state. if people want to come to the u.s. for the purpose of pursuing happiness, like they did in the late 1800's, that does nothing but good for america, just like it did then. if people are coming here perfect of its, the way? that is get rid of the benefits. -- people are coming here for the benefits, the way you fix that is get rid of the benefits. the drug war is why we are having a problem at the border. if we do not address the drug war, we cannot get the border situation under control and we cannot get our justice system under control. no one is talking about ending the drug war. the need to end the drug war. >> should comprehensive immigration reform include a path to citizenship for those already here? >> i think it should. when i looked at comprehensive immigration reform, the concept of securing the border is a dynamic one.

there is never a day when he would be able to say the border is secure because our adversaries have countermeasures. we have seen that for years. until we decrease demand by this side for whatever people are coming for, we will not be able to secure it. it will be an ongoing challenge every day. but we need comprehensive immigration reform. i support that and i support the dream act. but are not citizenship. we have to stop letting congress use this as a divisive, political wedge. president bush and senator kennedy came up with a great idea. two different politicians acted in a statesmanlike way to provide as a plan, a pathway to citizenship in the dream act. >> for those that say that plan as a shortcut for amnesty, you say -- >> i do not think so. it is a solution to a complex problem. the fact is, you will not be able to support 12 million people in the united states. so you need a reasonable way to adjudicate this problem. and i think president bush and senator kennedy had it right and congress failed them.

>> do you support the dream act? >> the dream act, if it has certain provisions in it. i introduced the strive act. with it was included a version of the dream act the did not mandate the state's offer in- state tuition. we have to deal with those who were brought here illegally. if the version of the dream act is good, i will. >> does this mean that he believes that were brought here it -- that those that were brought here as children need to go back to their country and reapply for entry to the united states? >> i do not think so. i think we can find a way to deal with that, but it has to be part of a broader picture. >> then you had before. thes tory changes. >> i introduce legislation for this. how can it be different? >> congressman, you flipped on a number of times depending on where you are in the political cycle, to ingratiate yourself. >> that's not true. >> i was in court today

representing someone who was illegal. the judge sentenced him to several months, got 16 months in prison. now we all as taxpayers have to pay to put him up in the bureau of prisons. this is ridiculous. he did not come here. he came here like most americans -- he did not come here looking for a benefit here he came here looking for work. he was shoveling gravel in mexico. but if we get this crazy national health care thing, if we wind up keeping this nutty, more government involvement with health care, what we are doing is we are sending a call to attract people. come here and use the government benefits. we are creating a welfare state. >> you just said it is a fiction that they are coming for benefits and now he said they're

coming for benefit. >> some of them might be coming here for benefits. i know there are people who come here to have birth and had the baby said they can both get citizenship as well as get the pregnancy coverage. we need to eliminate that. no person has a right to live at the expense of another person. that is an american principle we have forgot about in this country. we need to get back to that. >> congressman, how much should the united states police the world? >> i think we ought to detect our national security interests abroad. it ought to start with what is our national security interests, does our activity overseas for that interest? and two there are other reasons to be active overseas and one is humanitarian. it is a great thing we respond to natural disasters or intervene sometimes when we can save lives. but the foremost thing in our thinking has to always be, does this activity for the national security goals of united states? >> your colleagues have criticized the administration for leading from behind. do you agree?

>> i do not know how to characterize it, but it is a bit schizophrenic. we are seeing on the libya situation, where the administration simply cannot decide what it believed and when in terms of why our ambassador got killed. was it in response to a video that came out? that is what the obama administration said for a couple of weeks. now they are conceding, it seems, that this was a calculated effort by probably an al qaeda operative. >> our position in the world, is that where we should be? should we be more or less involved? >> what we have to do is ask the question, what is the global footprint we need to protect our national interest and also the allies were obligated to? the congressman mentions the issue and libya. the fact of the matter is, having been in the military and having been in the department of defense, health policy board, dealing with issues, we know intelligence built over time. it is difficult sometimes to ascertain specifically what happened.

i am not offending anybody, but some of these issues are more complex. what is the and the congressman is typical, chronic politicians stuff. everybody is wrong on the other side. the democrats and republicans do it. and everyone of these issues. i think it is really, really unfair because is it -- these issues are much more complex. when the incident happens, you do not have all of the intelligence. you wait and see. >> chronic politicians. >> the other side is wrong. since i have been and the congress, i have been able to pass more floor amendment then my republican colleagues. in the past four years, no democrat or republican has passed more floor amendments that i have. that can only come when you work well with the other side, when you have the temperament to sit down and work with people. i have worked with others in

farm subsidies. i worked with luis gutierrez on some immigration is huge. this notion that i blame the other side. your record shows you vote more than michele bachmann with your party. >> they said congressman jeff flake abandoned me on the issue of immigration. it was not bipartisanship. when he needed to move, he abandoned me and did not falter when he said he was going to do. >> do we want to talk about who abandoned whom? the obama administration had two years of republican house and senate and they did not introduce the same reforms that had been introduced before. >> this is all politics. we are not the world police.

we are not supposed to be the world police. you go back to george washington and he was saying, to not be the world police. what i want to know from the congressman is, will he admit he got hoodwinked on iraq? the government sold us a bill of goods about weapons of mass destruction for a country that has the gdp of a small city that was no threat there. it was no threat made or no ability to harm the united states, but here we are nine years into a war in iraq for 4,500 servicemen dead. he got faked out on that one. that is something we should not have been involved in. i wonder if the congressman would admit he was wrong? >> hindsight is 20/20. you had virtually the entire congress move along with the resolution to go to war. >> there is something happening in iran with nuclear weapons that is getting a lot of attention. how can we handle the threat of

nukes in iran? >> right now there is an embargo. two step process -- they have to enrich uranium so much that they can weaponize. they are not there yet. the estimates are six months, maybe a year away. if we can get china and russia to cooperate, we can make the embargo hurt them. right now, there are substrates flying over syrian air space. we need to do everything we can to prevent them from getting nuclear capability. the problem is, if they do, it is not just a threat to israel. we have an extremist group with nuclear capability. that would be a point where we have to act to prevent that from happening. >> do we have the resources to act? we can do it if we want but we have had a couple of wars.

>> we are broke. we have the debt up to the level of our gdp. it is something we do not want to do, but to protect our nation and to make sure that extremists do not have nuclear capability, we might have to act. >> iran. all options have to remain on the table. we hope we do not have to go there. >> that's every option. >> one second. back to iraq. this is why before we send troops around the world for things like iraq, congress is supposed to declare war. they did not. that should have been a debate. rather than sit there and get hoodwinked by the administration, now 4500 servicemen dead, congressmen should have a debate before they send troops abroad. the situation with iran, america has a right and obligation to defend its citizens. if there is a threat over there, and there may well be, if that threat becomes imminent we have an obligation to act to protect our people.

but i am not going to get hoodwinked. i will be a lot slower on the trigger to go after a country like iraq that really did not have any capabilities. >> obviously, the campaign is for the senate. the filibuster has been used in this current united states senate a lot. has it been abused? >> i think every party will say the other party abuses. i like the system. i like the requirement to get 60 votes. it requires working across the aisle. that is something i am well- suited for. i would not vote to get rid of the filibuster. sometimes it is abused by both parties. >> 1917-1970, 57 cloture votes. the current senate, 109. >> you have a dysfunctional son. we have not had a budget passed in more than three years -- we have a dysfunctional senate. the last time they passed the budget, the ipad had not been invented yet. >> can it be functional if the

filibuster is rearing its head? >> it can. we have had a filibuster for years. senator john mccain said that this is the first time in 51 years the senate has not passed a defense authorization bill. so the problem right now -- i do not think we will convince harry reid to change his stripes. in an election year, you do not have to convince. you have to replace. that is why we need a republican majority. >> given the people we have in congress, i would rather see gridlock then them getting through some of the crazy ideas, putting us more in debt like raising the debt ceiling. you know it is coming again. you know congressman how flake will look for it. maybe he will correct me and only vote for raising the debt ceiling when there is a republican president -- rather than have these people march down the same road, we are better off with gridlock. we need to change hearts and minds.

>> i want to know your opinion on the filibuster. is it being abused? should it be done away with? >> it is being abused. i would favor doing away with it. it is being abused. >> you do not think it is being used properly. >> it is not. >> before ago, a couple of quick questions. are you a member of tea party? >> no. >> are you proud to be backed by tea party? >> you bet. >> dr. carmona, we have heard that you are at times in the past have been difficult to deal with, difficult to get along with, your temper and has been questioned. how you respond? >> i have had tough jobs. when i was asked to come in and run the county health system. the board wanted to save the hospital. we saved the hospital. i have had tough positions throughout my life and sometimes leadership requires you to take this tough decisions. every one of these issues that

have come up, when i was vetted to be surgeon general, and they were all looked up here the fact is that i got a unanimous senate confirmation. i think the senate saw there was no merit in any of those allegations. >> and he would be able to cooperate with others in the senate. there is a question of whether or not is on my way or the highway situation with you. >> it is that way and the senate right now. as surgeon general, i got things done because i was able to work both sides of the aisle. i worked for one of the most conservative president in history -- president george bush. i work with democrats and republicans on issues of health, safety and security for the nation. >> did you sign the grover norquist no tax pledge? >> no. >> would you sign it? >> no. the only pledge i signed is a pledge to sign no more pledges. we have got to ensure that we go back and represent our constituents and away -- i believe the limited government, economic freedom, individual responsibility. i do not want higher taxes.

>> we have to stop right there. you will get your closing statement. each candidate will give a one minute closing statement. going in reverse order of the opening statements, we start with jeff flake. >> thank you, all. this has been a great debate. the hallmark of this country has always been that the next generation will have a better than the previous generation. that is certain hallmarks of arizona where the beauty of the sunset is only eclipsed by the beauty of the sun rise the next day. we have got to insure that we have somebody who understands the proper role of the federal government, that it is there to establish a tax environment and a regulatory environment where businesses can floors but it does not do much more. right now we have a federal government that is too large. $16 trillion debt. $1.30 trillion deficit. we need somebody who will stand up and fight.

i have that record in the house. that is the record i will take to the senate. that is why i appreciate your vote. thank you. >> our next closing statement is from mark victor. >> our country was founded upon freedom. we are about individual rights and responsibilities and free markets. we are about being free to vote -- and define and pursue your own happiness. it is about americans in charge of themselves. these are our principles. we have strayed so far from these principles. we have a busybody government that is into everything, it regulates and taxes everything and everyone to death. it is involved in our lives cradle to grave. over $16 trillion in debt and growing ever higher. the highest incarceration rate in the world. over 2 million in prison. perpetual war is that we keep paying for with more debt and human lives. we are speeding in the wrong direction. and guess who is driving?

it is the republicans and the democrats. if you like how things are going, do not vote for me. >> we have to stop you right there. our final closing statement is from richard carmona. >> i appreciate the opportunity to be with you. you've heard the debate tonight with a lot of different issues. obviously, we have to get our spending in check. we also absolutely need to look at how we can protect economic growth. but what i am running for, i want to make sure that every kid has an opportunity to appreciate the american dream, just like i did. the fact of the matter is congress is broken. congressman flake has been there for a dozen years. we have communities that are struggling in arizona. people have reached out and said, when you are a senator, you need to help us. these remarks -- it is not about earmarks. it is about us having infrastructure growth and opportunity.

i will not run to be worried about being reelected. i want to run because i want to change washington and make sure we have an infrastructure of opportunity for all those kids to want to move forward. >> thank you, all, candidates. thank you for watching a special vote 2012 debate featuring candidates for arizona's open seat. be sure to join us for the debate between the candidates in district 9. that is thursday, october 18, on arizona horizon. to replay this debate, visit our vote 2012 site at azpbs.org/vote2012. i'm ted simons. you have a great evening. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> the thing about eisenhower is that he would never tell anybody whether he was going to use nuclear weapons. why is this important? in the 1950's, nuclear-weapons were pretty new comment and we threatened to use them at various stages. nobody ever knew whether he was serious or not. of course, it to be credible as a deterrent, and you have to be credible, and ike never told anybody. talk about loneliness of command. the use of nuclear weapons, what could be a greater demand -- command decisions and that? now he is president and he has an even greater level of responsibility at a time when nuclear-weapons are new. not just one or two, but we're building a whole arsenal.

are we going to use these things or not? ike use them as a tool. basically to avoid any more. >> evan thomas on "ike's bluff." >> and this government has promised and maintain the closest surveillance of the soviet's military buildup on the island of cuba. within the past week, unmistakable evidence has established the fact that a series of offensive missile sites is now in preparation on that imprisoned island. the purpose of these bases can be none other than to provide a nuclear strike capability against the western hemisphere. >> do you denied the u.s.s.r. has placed, medium and

intermediate range missiles in cuba? yes or no? do not wait for the translation. >> 13 days in october 1962. historians, scholars, the filmmakers, and journalists, on the 50th anniversary of the cuban missile crisis. on c-span 3 american history tv. >> now discussion on the presidential campaign with david corn who helped release the video of mitt romney referring to 47% in america. he was a guest this week on "washington journal." >> we are joined now by david corn out with a new book, and

made the comment on the 47%. i want to show a little bit of the video and get your reaction to what he is saying now. >> if i am president, i will be president of 100 percent of the people. my whole campaign is about helping the middle-class, rising incomes and more jobs. and helping get people out of poverty into the middle class. that is what this is about. the wealthy are doing fine. and they will do fine most likely regardless of who's elected president. it is the middle class that is having a hard time under president obama. and my campaign is about 100% of the american people. and so that describes -- it is not referring to what president i would be or who i would be fighting for.

host: your reaction? guest: nobody has to review it to my analysis. you can watch the video. and when i watched it for the first time, my jaw dropped. i was stunned at what i interpreted to be a tremendous amount of disdain being expressed by a man who wanted to be president of half of the country. he literally said 47% of the country will not take personal responsibility for their lives. he is trying to spin it to say he is talking about policy issues. all of those statements after the fact have merit in and of

themselves. but they do not reflect on what he actually said. he said that these people believe that they are entitled to food, health care, housing, you name it. they want to live off others. to me, the most alarming one is that there will not take personal responsibility for their lives. you watch the tape. i certainly am speaking in full sentences. it was spoken with more passion and conviction, that you often do not see in it mitt romney the. was addressing the question. the question basically, how can you convince people to get off and take responsibility in the two once you have in the general election. he answered the question quite

completely. but again, i come to my original point, you do not have to take my word for that. host: when the video was first released, the entire video was not released. you are saying now begun what it for yourself. guest: the entire answer was released. we did what any journalist would do, when you cover the candidate's speech, the new york times does not put the whole speech on the front page. they do not broadcast the whole speech. you find the things that you think are newsworthy. and so we plead guilty to finding what we thought was newsworthy in the video and putting that out first, there were five clips and other things reported in my original story that i thought was newsworthy. the second-degree focused on foreign policy things. but we broke the story at 4:00 p.m. on monday afternoon.

with the 47% remark regarding politics and other things that he said. things that we thought were interesting. tuesday morning, people that his statement about part of the tape about middle east conflict in which contradicted what he said publicly. and then, basically, tuesday afternoon he put out everything. we could've held onto it for days and continued leaking stories. but we decided not to. we decided it was of such interest that we let other people to decide what they would think is important. that was our scoop. we managed it that way. it was in keeping with the conventional keepings of journalism.

you are out with a new e-book on this. how do people read this? guest: again, it is an e-book, you can go to amazon.com you can go to ibooks, my kids were pleased that it was right next to j.k. rowling's new book. for anybody who reads with a tablet, phone, a candle -- they know where to go. it is 99 cents. it is a short book, or a very long section of a book. it is what publishers and china do,. i was happy to shoot up number 1

in the elections category. this basically a narrative about how the video -- how it came about, and putting it into context of the campaign and why i think it resonated. and how it reinforced a narrative that the obama campaign spent months negotiating. and how i think it actually forced met romney's. it to the metal. -- to the middle. host: did you find the video or was it given to you? guest: what happened was, it is a great lesson for journalism students. early in the summer, there were a series of stories about mitt romney the's investments through been capital including in a company called global tech, it has made some of the obama ads. the chinese company that did a lot of outsourcing for american

manufacturers. the whole debate about outsourcing and job creation, it is a piece of evidence in that debate, because mitt romney. one of his pain and vestments invested millions of dollars and this -- one of his bain and vestments invested millions of dollars in this. i came into contact with a guy named james carter. i did not know at the time that he is jimmy carter's grandson. i did not think to ask. it is not an uncommon name. is a free-lance research guy. he found some sec documents that were interesting. and sort of sent them to me. and i get leads like this all of the time. the first thing you do is you go and you look at the document itself. and so we started batting back

and forth some ideas. and then in the middle of all of that, he came across a video that was bumping around for a couple months. -- he thought was probably related to this company. and he said, maybe there is more on the tape that describes more completely what he was doing. what was seeking to achieve it. and i said, let us try to find the person that put up the tape, they had done it in anonymously. in a couple of days, yet found a person anonymously. we never get the true identity of this person. and said david has done a series of articles and a person wants to talk to you about this video and what else he might have, and

james was a go-between and put us together. and then i do with journalists do. and i develop a relationship of trust and comfort with the source, who obviously did not just want to put it out. wanted it to remain anonymous. and ultimately persuaded the person to share the video and then we talked about how to use it. i could tell how big it might be. so the combination of the things -- really, for journalism students out there, the interesting thing is that it really came about because i had done these other stories. butterwort gang busters. and the source -- he cared about the china caller:. he had seen those stories. that was one reason why this person was willing to work. we are always working on things.

i have a different type of video that i think we might be putting up tomorrow. i cannot tell you more until we fact check. host: will it rocked the 2012 election? gut: it will not be as big. we have gotten a lot of believes. we are still running them down. if there is anything else, just send them to me. motherjones.com. we have gotten a lot of leads that are pretty outrageous. host: before we get to phone calls you -- romney is up on average. guest: i think there's no doubt that mitt romney took a tremendous hit from the video.

and as you can see, as you showed, he still has to talk about it. we live in an era where the news cycles can be measured almost and nanosecond's. and what happened tuesday by the sunday shows feels really old. and things did not stick around that long. but happens at the first debate with mitt romney and the president will be eclipsed somewhat by what happens thursday and really eclipsed by what happens next tuesday when they meet again. a week or two for any story is extraordinary. i think the fact that we are still talking about the 47% remarks shows the impact it has had. i do not know if anything else has happened this election cycle, maybe books, has lasted this long. i think the most precious thing of any presidential campaign -- it is not money, it is time.

you have 10 weeks or less between the conventions and election day. and mitt romney had to spend two weeks dealing with this issue. he had a very good debate showing. and it seems to of an impact at the polls, initially here. maybe he would be further ahead now have to actually spend those two weeks doing what he had intended to do, rather than playing defense. and i do know the focus groups of both the romney campaign and the obama campaign shows these remarks really alienated independent voters and week republicans. which indicates to me that if this comes up in the debate, it will remind people, they may respond to this down the road or in the next debate. host: let us get to phone calls.

>> i would like to say that mitt romney expressed his real feelings about the 47%. it cannot be ignored. and also, understand that he it pledge.rover norquist's if he did that, he cannot represent 100% of the population. because of you say that you are going to ignore the situation that the country is in, you cannot say that you unequivocably will ignore taxes the country. for he could not represent me and

the middle-class, and/or poor people. host: this tweet -- the 53% are not in the least offended by the comment. which was by and large, true. guest: this remark included people who are working hard who have to use food stamps as a stop-gap measure. people on medicare. people on medicaid, including middle-class families who use it for nursing-home care. he wasn't just talking about -- when you talk about these people, you are not just talking about moochers and loafers. i had one woman recognize me in

a hardware store, and she took me aside and said i college education, i cannot find a job, and making $12,000 a year. i am on food stamps. i am working really hard to get off this. i do not feel i am entitled, but i need it. and i have gotten a lot of anecdotes coming in like that from a lot of people. they haven't added to that i have heard other people say -- they have an attitude that i have heard other people say. what we just heard mitt romney say yesterday is that the wealthy are doing fine. i do not care about the wealthy. then the question is, why you want to lower their tax rate? his tax rate calls for lowering every tax rate. he is saying man is not his plan. the obama campaign is trying to make a campaign issue out of it.

if the wealthy is doing fine, then do what some senate says. he keeps talking about balls simpson, every chance he gets. to not slash government spending. to of a slow decline, and raise taxes on the wealthy to close that gap. the ryan budget which mitt romney endorsed, would have tremendously slashing e fax in a social programs and government spending. and cut taxes further. so, i think there still is a lot of a back and forth flip- floping. or strategic ambiguity in what mitt romney is saying. host: on our line for

independents, bob. caller: i am informed voter. i spend 30 plus years in the consulting industry. i do not know how to create jobs. and certain people would have you believe it is possible. there are a number of people that have led to the current conditions. and i do not hear anybody talking about what is line to be done to alleviate those factors. i am going to give you examples. one is the banks, the availability of money. two is the confidence in the wall street. so many people got burned, who wants to take a chance on investing money. 3, oil. -- when competition was an increasing at a dramatic rate. and finally, industries.

previously, there were always some industry that was in the vanguard, cell phones, high- tech revolution, auto industry, it was always some industry there that was picking up the slack for the rest of the failing economy. i do not hear anybody talking about what they are going to do to restore confidence and wall street by holding certain people accountable, what they will do to ensure money is available for an investor's in the street, what they will do to alleviate the condition in the oil. i do not hear anybody talking about these things. guest: i think those are all great issues that you raised. we could spend one hour going through those. but i think if you looked at some of those things, the president has said, maybe he

hasn't reached yet. for instance, he says, you past wall street reform, but one reason you pass it is to set rules to encourage confidence again amongst investors who not want to get burned and not want to become part of the shenanigans that came up during cheney0's and the bush years. the way to do that is to tighten the rules of the road. the senate bursas brown of massachusetts talks about the spirit if you have a better and more capital, it will help the economic. terms of industries of the future, -- mitt romney and

obama have competing views. mitt romney me thinks the market will figure it out. obama talks about the needs for investment, government investments to spur innovation. if you look of something like the internet, a few of the transcontinental railroad, started by linkedin, as a way -- started by president lincoln. obama has a view that we get together jointly and we try to see certain areas, which is what is happening in china and europe in terms of grain jobs, solar jobs, governments are investing a tremendously in the stock and pulling ahead of us. right now might not be money winners, but there the energies

of the future. again, i think the president is trying to address some of your concerns. and mitt romney is talking about them and a different way. host: on our facebook page riposted questions for you. here is one from kathy. between part one and part two of -- the tapes the type selectively edited? >> no. the source said that while recording the fund-raiser, the device the source was using timed out. he does not know why. maybe it was jostled.

maybe it timed out. as soon as the source noticed that, the device was turned back on. and the source estimates one to two minutes or less was not captured. so we put it up exactly as we received it. no editing, none of that. to me it is stunning. there have been some conservatives who claim that there are two important missing minutes. as of that would have any bearing on the remarks, we have 70 minutes of remarks here. and so in those minutes, did he say, i am just kidding about the other stuff? he never came out and said, more importantly, before mitt romney tried to explain this, about 10 times now, and he has never said

those remarks were taken out of context. i then said this when i meant that. we put up a very long sound bites. longer than you get on most network news shows to show as much of the context as we could show. i think this is short of a red herring that even the romney campaign has not thrown under the table. host: what can you tell us about the source? guest: not much. all i can say is that the person did not go to the fund-raiser as part of a political it job. they went realizing they would be in a room with a presidential candidate. but something interesting might did not go inbiut with that intent.

host: were they invited? guest: that is really all i can say. the back-and-forth i said, i described the bookk. davidcorn on twitter. i wish i could say more. many people want to know. host: we will go to mike next. caller: thank you for taking my call. david, this must be quite exciting for you. this is probably the first tv i have seen you on besides msnbc, and regards to your remarket the chopped up faith, we pretty much know that your story does not wash, because you can look at the entire tape that you put up with the chopped out part --

caller: just accused me of lying. guest: i did not chop anything out of the tape. if you are going to accuse me, there is no need for further conversation. caller: then let me restate this. whoever you provided you the state, who jostled it -- why that device stays exactly in the entire time. guest: i told you what the source said. i believe the source. and if it timed out, you just push a button and it starts up again. but again, to me, my question to

you is, if there is missing moments, so what? what do you think mitt romney said? do you think he said i am kidding about that. guest: let me respond to what i think. i think what he was saying, which is what americans believe is that there are a lot of people and i see them every day, i see them in the grocery store. i engaged with them every day that are receiving some sort of government subsistence, and those people do not need to have that government subsistence. we drive a 1992 camry and i see them drive it 2012 suv as they lead a parking lot. those people are taking away from the people who really need it. i have one other question for you and for the show host. will you also give -- will c- span also give a time to the

recent release of the 2007 tape for barack obama -- where he basically calls the united states government racist in regards to how the treatment of the people during katrina? that is important that we get equal time for tapes. thank you. host: we did last week when fox news talked about that video on hannity's show, the next morning the "washington journal." we showed the video. we talked about it, read some newspaper articles. we did address that. david corn. guest: you did. it seems mike thinks things are rigged when they are not rigged. mitt romney said what he said. he does not claim that he said anything later that made those remarks different than how we heard them. he said there are people -- the 47%. he said some. he did not say a small margin. he said 47% of americans will not take personal responsibility for their own lives.

i do not know how people can spin that to be anything else other than what it is. host: we will go on to alicia. russellville, arkansas, democratic caller. caller: hi, i am humbled, david corn, a pleasure. i love your magazine. when i saw the clip you put out, my jaw also dropped. i thought he was going to be out of the race right now -- no problem, no chance left. to go on to the middle class and jobs, romney says he supports the middle class and wants to grow jobs. he also says the rich will use their money to make more jobs. i say that his actions should speak louder than his words. his fortune came on the backs of the workers of the united states. take the companies, and sell them off. fire the workers.

move to other jobs out of the country. while he is moving these jobs out of the country and building up his fortune, he may as well move his money offshore so he does not have to pay taxes. i do not know how someone with that kind of record can say that he is going to be creating jobs or that anyone in the upper class -- we do not want to tax them because they create the jobs. i do not know how many jobs he created. i know he ended a lot of jobs. host: we will leave it there and have david corn respond. guest: you made some of the case against mitt romney that at bain he was interested not in creating jobs but in maximizing wealth for his investors. that meant he would buy

companies and sometimes the companies improved. sometimes they did not. bain usually found a way to make money one way or the other. they would get out. i put up a video after the 47% video in which he described bain and said their idea was to harvest companies. that is what hedge fund, private-equity guys do. that is their right to do it that way. newt gingrich called it vulture capitalism. it is not looking at a company as a member of the community that creates jobs and is a source of wealth for the people who work there. it is looking at a company and saying -- how they can benefit because the company is undervalued or has potential it does not realize. how can we increase that potential and then make money and take off and not care? it is a different view. the president had a good response to that in june and july when they were arguing

about the bain days. he said if you are president, your job has to be bigger than maximizing profits for a class of investors. mitt romney is having a difficult time applying his past experience to this larger job of leading a nation and growing an economy in the public interest rather than creating wealth in the private interest. >> we are talking to david corn. he has a new ebook, "47 percent: uncovering the romney video that rocked the 2012 election" our producer reminded me per that previous phone call, who said he wants equal time for videos, we are having tucker carlson on the show next week, the daily caller. he was the one that talked about the 2007 video of president obama that then sean hannity had on his show on fox news. >> there was a difference in

that that video had been recorded on. there had been transcripts out in the public record. it was not a surprise. that was a public event where the president knew there were cameras. with the mitt romney video, no one has seen mitt romney talk in a private fundraiser like that. this idea of equivalence between these two videos -- i have to object to. host: maxine, in linden, michigan, independent caller. go ahead. guest: i have so much to talk to about. this person that made the video and refuses to give his identity is a coward. he throws a rock and hides his hand. you are supporting him. it fits your agenda. the reason this video did not hurt romney is because it is true. i am from a family of eight children.

i have a brother who has never worked a day in his life. the government has supported him, has built him a house, paid all of his medical bills. he had five children. all five are on the government. he figures his job as a parent is done when his children can get on welfare. the reason the video did not hurt to romney is because it is true. there are people who are gaming the system. guest: on the welfare reform that bill clinton and newt gingrich and other still tout, you do not necessarily have to be on welfare as a child and not work. i do not understand your brother's situation. it does not comfort with the policies as republicans and democrats describe. putting that aside, mitt romney was free to say there are people who are gaming the system.

he did not say that. he said that anyone who is on entitlements, a pell grant, trying to go to college to better themselves, anyone who uses of food stamps because they are in between jobs, people who are on medicare, medicaid. i do not know if you use any of those responsibly. they are all part of the mooching society. people are free to say we should get rid of the social safety net and not have these programs. we can have that debate in this country. that is a fine debate to have. mitt romney lumped all of these people together. your brother who is irresponsible with someone who is on veterans' assistance. that is where a lot of people took offense. host: the caller implied you have an agenda. here is a tweet from one of our

viewers, anton. he says, "but david corn remains a leftist shill for the democrat party." guest: you can look back at what i have done over the year. i have been critic of democrats as well. i did work for a "mother jones," which is a progressive magazine. we don't hide anything about that. you will have tucker carlson on from a conservative magazine. we do exist in this world. go to motherjones.com. we spent a lot of our time doing investigative reporting with a tremendous amount of fact checking and a loyalty to accuracy. people can call me names if it makes them feel better. the issue is what the facts we bring to bear and whether it is true or not. you have a hard time taking issue with a videotape of a candidate saying something. host: you said earlier another video that will be posted on

your website tomorrow? do you know what time? can you tell us a little bit more? >> there are a few fact- checking issues. we are trying to nail down something. i hope it will be up tomorrow. it involves mitt romney. that is all i should say in case it is not up tomorrow. >> same source? >> no, it is not from a private fundraiser. we put up every second we have. there is nothing from that fundraiser that is not in the public record. host: john in cartersville, north carolina, democratic caller. caller: hello, one of the things that i wanted to say was i think that during the debate it was misinterpreted by a lot of people obama's reaction. he said the $5 trillion tax cuts to romney on purpose.

he waited for him to list down all of his misguided or changes he was going to make. after it was over, and he thought it was going to be out in the open that he ended up making a bunch of commercials about big bird because it was the only truth that came out of mitt romney's mouth. i would like to be able to say an answer to that after you answer me. guest: the people who worked on the obama campaign were not happy by the president's performance. it was not as if this was a strategic act on his part that he would act dissonant, look down a lot, not challenge romney directly or indirectly, sufficiently on some of these big issues.

act in a lackluster fashion. they were on a conference call before the debate was over trying to figure out how to make the best of the situation. it may be that the president will indeed do that. it is always difficult to extrapolate from any given point. that moment was not a good night for the president. it was a good night for romney. he came across with a certain amount of force and vigor. focus groups show that the impact was in his favor but not as much as the pundits on the cable tv's and news shows and newspapers said it was. all that said -- the first debate will not be as important as the second, which will not be as important as the third debate. there will be plenty of time

for the president to come out with a different approach. there is plenty of time for romney to revert back to the not-great candidate he was before the night of the debate. host: carol, in cortez, colorado. republican. guest: thank you for taking my call. i will only be on for a few moments. could not interrupt me, please? i know you want to answer each thing i say. it takes away from my time. you can answer afterward if you would please. we are continuing to beat a dead horse. we are like dorothy out here in the united states. the curtain has been pulled back on the debate. everyone knows the president that we have now. if he cannot go toe to toe with romney and mr. lehrer, how will he go toe to toe with putin?

he will bow. i am sick of hearing about this 47%, which mitt has already addressed. he said it was not that great of a statement. we all do not make our points the best way. i am probably not going to right now because i am kind of nervous. you can say things that have the truth in the base of them. most of americans think what he said in the tape there is a truth to it. we need to clean up welfare and things like that. >> all of us would agree to that. he may have not said it the best way. guest: you are wrong if you look at the polls. most americans did not approve of those remarks. that is a fact. obviously, you approve, and republicans are trying to find a way to make the same not a

big deal. most americans and majority of independents disapprove of those remarks. as far as the president's performance of the debate, people can judge anyway they want. you think he is tough enough to destroy the al-qaida leadership but not strong enough to take on mitt romney. that is your prerogative. i want to say something that i did not respond to from a caller a few back. he called the source a coward for not coming forward. there are a lot of whistle- blowers in society who give us information of what goes on behind the scenes that allows up know what our politicians, our government officials, our corporate executives are doing that contradict what they tell us they are doing or what they say their positions are in public. usually, it is an act of

courage to do that. people often do that at risk to themselves. i cannot describe what happened in this instance. in my book, i call this a gutsy move on the part of the source. i want people to know that. >> david corn, "47 percent: uncovering the romney video that rocked the 2012 election," an ebook that you can pick up on any one of your electric readers. washington bureau chief with "mother jones." thank you very much for talking to our viewers. >> thank you for having me. >> tomorrow, we have charles hurt in the talks about the 2012 presidential campaign. leonard steinhorn talks about how citizens can -- non citizens can impact the a tour college vote.

washington journal, live at 7:00 a.m. on c-span. on tuesday, two counter- terrorism experts said the obama administration expansive use of drug strikes may be undermining the overall security objectives in places like pakistan and yemen. trona strikes have increased about one every four days since the bush administration. the center for national policy posted this hour-long event. -- hosted this hour-long event. >> good afternoon. i am gregory aftandilian.

i am a fellow at the center of national policy. on behalf of our chairman and president, i want to welcome you here today and i want to welcome c-span for covering this event. the event is titled "death from above," -- drone attacks have been accelerated under the obama administration. it seems to be the main weapon against out had and their affiliates in yemen and pakistan. somewhere between 1597 and 2004 -- militants have been killed by drug since 2004 -- killed by

drones since 2004. since 2004, the non militant capital rate has been around 50% or 16%. this means several non the militants have been killed. although that number has fallen dramatically since 2004, it remains a highly sensitive issue. there has been controversy surrounding the drone campaign, especially on the morality of the strikes. second, the question is raised is the united states making more enemies over this? third, it is the legality of the drug operation -- drone operation. fourth is the sovereignty issue. although these attacks have the

acquiescence of the governments in which they take place. but are they being used as a political issues by political actors against the united states? we saw over the weekend that the former pakistan a cricket star am running con -- imran khan tried to process the attacks. he was stopped by police but he did get a lot of publicity out of the attack -- out of the protest. this is a way to broaden their base by using anti-american as some -- americanism i would like to start with an introduction from the person to my left. he is a fellow -- as many of you

are aware, peter bergen is also the leading national security analyst at cnn where he is called for his expertise on terrorism. he has been covering terrorism issues for many years with his time as a journalism. in 1997, he interviewed bin laden. this was the first interview where bin laden declared war on the united states and said said to a western audience. in addition, he has written many books on these subjects, --luding "holy war, onc "holy war, inc."

we are pleased to have him here today. to my left is christopher swift. he is a professor of abject security studies at georgetown university's. degree in bachelor's government. he also has a ph.d. in politics and international policy from cambridge. is the author of an upcoming book entitled, "the fighting vanguard's." most recently, he did a film research in yemen, which he will be talking about today -- he did it feel that research in yemen. thank you very much. we are pleased to have you today. without further ado, let me turn to peter bergen for his comments and insight.

>> thank you for the introduction. i wanted to talk about the findings of the new america foundation in terms of drones. can everyone here me? 2004 was one of the first drone strikes in pakistan which was authorized by george bush. there were over 45 drone strikes that year. no drone have occurred outside the tribal areas. you used the word acquiescence. there is some acquiescence by the pakistan government. it would change if the drone strikes took place in some more other than the tribal regions. they are referred to as foreign

areas, so constitutionally, the troubled regions have never been part of pakistan proper and there would be huge push back if strikes were started in the balochistan board -- or khyber- pakhtunkhwa. they also have f-16's, so if they were worried about strikes, they could just shoot s.e drone right now, the america has a nine% favorable rate in pakistan. the parliament approved to and the use of drones on their territory. the united states government has ignored that.

it has increased dramatically under president obama. there is one strike every 40 days. how do we assemble our data about strikes? we do not do any original reporting. we rely on russian and pakistan a news reports. we also rely on a television stations and -- basically outlet that we think are credible media outlets. of the drone strikes, they hits -- seven% hit in the northern provinces. that is where many of the four fighters are based. -- foreign fighters are based. they would say that they have

done serious operations in places like -- there are relatively limited operations in north azeris down -- in march of 2011, a pakistan the major general acknowledged that the number of innocent people being killed is a relatively low. most targets are hard-core militants. just to get into that with a little more detail, under president obama, there seems to be a shift away from apartheid that towards more taliban targets. about 25% of targets were all tied up, 40% were taliban to the expense -- the number of

militant leaders who have been cleared -- killed has been declining over the life of the program. 49 militant leaders have been killed in the strikes. this program was designed to has those leaders, but it' killed people who cannot be constrained to be militant leaders. 1300 to 2300 militants have been killed. lower-level combatants. we calculate the civilian casualty rate, which was 33% under bush, has dropped to two% under president obama. -- 2%. our methodology has been exactly the same. some will criticize us for our

plan. -- for our claims. based on our research, only 2% of the casualties were civilians. we are finding with the exact same methodology that the civilian casualty rates was about 3% under bush. the drone attacks get lost in the comfort -- coverage. the pakistan the taliban has killed almost 30,000 people in the last several years. one of the leaders of the pakistan the taliban was killed in a cia drone strike.

some of these attacks have been in pakistan's interests. in 2010, there were one hundred 22 drones strikes. it went down and whether a 25% -- it went down another 25%. why is it going down? there has been a debate within the state department and cia. some feel that we are over using this tactic. the price of the program is alienating pakistani's. there are other factors that have caused this decline. there is increased congressional oversight.

one congressman went on record with the "l.a. times" to really examine this program in more detail. another factor is a declining number of targets in the tribal areas. you have to be pretty stupid it or desperate to remain in their if you are a member of a terrorist organization. just to wrap this up, and it may be zuma out to a little bit further, -- and maybe zoom out of pakistan -- the arms -- the united states were only able to arm its funds in the post 911 era. there was discussion on who was going to pay with -- for the

drones. the first victim was a military commander in the -- in out qaeda. the united states will not have a monopoly and on drones. israel has sold drone technology. china has had as of 2010. it had 25 different types of drones. the number of armed drones will disappear very quickly. you could easily imagine chinese using groans against weaker separatists or the i iranians easternones against

iran. a public discussion as we are having here about drones is a good thing. >> thank you very much, peter. >> thank you for the center of national policy for putting together this forum. i would like to begin by thanking peter and commending him and the new american foundation for the research they are doing. there are a lot of pundits and policy makers who have very strong opinions of a the drone of program. but those who have went into the field and a crutch the data, -- crunched the data, they should

be commended for having that information. i will take a different approach. i am a lawyer and political scientist. i i basically have three things i would like to do. i would like to discuss some of my observations from my field work in yemen this past summer. i would like to talk about how some of those observations resonate with some of the core principles that define the law of war. i would like to go from specific to general. i would like to talk about the debate in this world, technology, and policy. on to yemen. i have been researching a book. the object of the book is to unravel and untangle the webs in networks we have seen develop

since 9/11. a very important case study in that research is yemen. it is a place where al qaeda has shifted to following afghanistan and pakistan. also iraq. as a result of that shift, and a generational shift after the death of bin laden, we are seeing new strategies. they are operating prominently in arab culture. yemen is crucial to how al qaeda is evolving and the way it is using local insurgencies. before i went to yemen, some colleagues encouraged me to look at the drone issue, as well. not just a question of how al qaeda interfaces with indigenous tribes. there were two arguments. the human rights committee was making the arguments that drone strikes are the approximate cost of al qaeda's effort in

yemen. there are numbers to back that. the operational capacity since 2009. on the national security side, i had colleges said, let's figure out if our drone strikes are helping us to deal with a terrorist challenge. when i got to yemen, i interviewed for the tribal and religious leaders. i found both of these narratives we had in washington, that the drone strikes helping us set up in yemen and they are causing the growth of al qaeda in yemen had no relation to what is happening on the ground. what i did find is that al qaeda's recruiting is not driven by a u.s. drone strikes. not ideology or religion. it is driven by desperation.

yemen's live in $60 economies. in a region that is cut off from the rest of the world, where people are living on less than 800 calories a day, that makes a difference. it is a real concern about government corruption that is pulling people into the insurgency in yemen. not drone strikes, not jihad, not ideology. all of those things are used. the second thing i found in yemen, they resent the drone strikes. they have the image of the drones and the u.s. government is standing up a government that is not accountable to them.

we hear this over and over. in the south and in the north. this notion that the u.s. is propping up a government that is not responsive to the population. it is fundamentally undermining our political objectives, even while securing our security objectives. neither one of them bears any resemblance to the facts on the ground. they are distorting our ability to understand the relationship between the instruments of policy and the actual substance of our objectives. our security terms and our long-term political objectives. let me summarize some of the things tribal and religious leaders told me. they are willing to accommodate them if the united states can meet three conditions. no civilian casualties. not using any more force than is necessary to take care of

the problem. they see it as a dispute between the united states and al qaeda. it is very individualized and particularized. the third thing is basically when you target al qaeda, make sure you target the leaders. they want to pull people away from the organization. they do not support al qaeda. they do not want those kids to become a target for the u.s. drones. they want to get rid of al qaeda but also have a functioning government, provide security for their people, and make sure their people do not get caught in the crossfire. when we look at the general principles of national law and a lot of war, there are three

normative constructs that we use to define what is and what is not legal. those contracts are immunity, do not kill civilians. even by accident. the second is proportionality. use only as much force as you need to remove the threat. remove only those who pose a threat. the values resonate very closely with what the yemenis religious leaders told me. when you think about international law and the law of war, we have to think not about law as about a fundamental set of rules that can never be broken. we have to look at it as a series of lessons from previous generations who fought nasty wars. those lessons are avoid civilian casualties. help radicalize the indigenous population. use restraint. focus on proportionality.

only the force you need to achieve your objective. know what objectives you want to achieve and do not go beyond that. we have an increase in the intensity in u.s. operations. we have a ship on target strike based on positive information, to so-called signature strikes. that may have worked pretty well in pakistan, where ethnic arabs have a tendency to stick out. in a place like yemen where ethnic arabs are coming back and reintegrating into their own tribal structures, the signature strike becomes problematic. drones are a tool.

they allow us to extend our reach and reduce the cost of intervening. they do not change the need for having very clear intelligence. they do not change the need to understand a local social, political, and economic standards on the ground. they do not change the human dimension of war. the relationship between a population that is fighting were living amidst war, and the people who are coming out to intervene. these other questions that are being lost in the drone debate. we are focusing on the technology and proliferation. we are focusing on hard notions of right and wrong, liberty versus security, war and peace. these issues reach all the way back.

they are issues about how we fight and when we fight and how we know it is ok to fight and what tools are ok, given the context. they are all policy decisions. we need to be very careful that we think the technology is changing fundamentally a human endeavor. the fault is in ourselves. if we want to have affected policy in places like yemen and somalia and pakistan, we have to have a richer understanding of what is happening on the ground and a richer understanding of the diversity of views and the consequences of this kind of intervention going forward. thank you. >> thank you. a quick follow up to this. you talk about the 17 to 18 year olds who get recruited and it is primarily for money.

they will get killed in a drone strike. is there a meeting of the minds? >> what is driving recruitment in yemen is the breakdown of tribal institutions and political institutions. you have a water crisis, an ecological crisis. the majority of yemenis are living on less than $60 a month. if you are the head of a family, a 30-year-old, and you have a wife, children, and you are living on $60 a day and someone comes into your community and says i can pay you $400 but you have to believe in jihad and carry this rifle and should we tell you to shoot, that is a good deal. whether these people get sucked up and get targeted, that is an unfortunate reality.

right now in yemen, we do not have a good review of what groups, what tribal structures, what regions are places where al qaeda has a lot of reach and influence. we have a general view from 12,000 feet above. you cannot fight this kind of war by remote control. you have got to have that view on the ground. it does not mean we should have the kind of intervention we have had in afghanistan and iraq. they would not make sense in yemen. but it does mean we have to have a clear picture of who our adversary is and how it relates to the local population, and the points of pressure. we do not have that here we are trying to fight the war from remote control. >> when did you do your research? what is your assessment of al qaeda and yemen right now? they have suffered some major military reverses.

what did you make of the president's, of the un general assembly on drones? why did he make those? president obama had no one-on- one meeting, except with them? is that correct? >> i do not know about the last part. i was there shortly after the bombing in the capital of yemen. i interviewed some of the officers. i was there until early june just before the yemenis forces went in. it was a very exciting and rich time to be there in terms of the data available. my general assessment of al qaeda you can find in the article i wrote for west point, the ctc sentinel journal they put out there.

that went up around july. i think al qaeda got extended beyond their capacity. they try to consolidate territory and said the system of government in the province. they were burning a lot of money in the process. they were not quite ready to do it yet. yemen has done a good job of pushing them back, where you try to consolidate power, to where you run operations. provocation operations, terrorist operations, bombings, and the like. what we have seen in yemen is not a young man army route, but an al qaeda strategic retreat back to areas where it has better sustainability and the capacity to sustain a beating. the question was about their president's comments on drones. >> he made unusual comments.

>> they underscore the difference between the yemeni leadership and their concerns about instability in the country, and what ordinaire yemen's our thinking in the streets. the yemeni leadership is concerned about the threat. they are concerned about some other country coming in and meddling with their affairs. there is a disconnected there. that is growing and growing. i think there president gave a very clear, factual assessment of what drones' can do and how they are helping his government take care of some security problems. one of the things i do not think he has a knowledge is the degree to which that kind of intervention and the way it is seen in society is undermining the legitimacy of transitional government with ordinary yemenis on the street. >> it sounds like quite difficult research.

multiple wars going on in yemen right now. how did you deal with your personal security? >> i relied on local to provide the security. when i was in the north, i had a good interpreter who had an extensive network of people who would provide some security. and we went down to the south, we moved from tribal shake to tribal shake. i was writing in pickup trucks with a bunch of tribal fighters. i am clearly a foreigner. i might have been a target. the simple reality is if you take any research in afghanistan and pakistan, if you take the time to do your homework and build local relationships, you can get much richer relationship and a broader perspective than you can rely on third-party reports were hearsay discussions or other types of data.

it does not mean we did not have any political actions. having seven guys with seven rifles in your truck is very persuasive. >> we are happy you came back safe and sound. [laughter] you provided us with a lot of rich research. thank you. it is time to open up for some "q&a". please identify yourself before asking questions. >> for a young american being deployed for u.s. military purposes, are the rules changing?

how are they acting and is there anything especially to be concerned about for them? >> how are drones changing the lives of the ordinary soldiers? >> beyond that, as far as american military. >> when we talk about drones, their use an ordinary warfare in afghanistan and iraq is quite uncontroversial. in iraq, you are talking about hundreds of thousands during the iraq war in any given year. i just bought a drone on amazon for 200 the to dollars. the ordinary soldier will have almost their own drone relatively soon. the technology is already here. it is changing the nature of warfare.

the libya opposition to gaddafi had their own severely strong for $100,000. if you are able -- for the ordinary soldier, drones are integrated into how you proceed in the battlefield, whether it is surveillance drones, armed drones, or both. >> yes sir. please. >> uav's. i once told them we had to go to toys r us and buy these things. that was the evolution of the technology. when they gave me a bunch, i used to say, do not tell me the problem. tell me the solutions. you articulated the problems

extraordinarily well. what would you do if you were in charge? that is the real crux of where we go. you cannot stop technology. i will not begin to tell you what i saw 11 years ago compared to today. >> let me break that down into three solutions. one is practical, one is security related, and one is legal. in terms of u.s. operations in these places, we have to have visibility on the ground. we have to know who our local partners are. we have to have good tools to distinguish our local adversaries from them. not everybody with a turban is al qaeda. we have to have that view on the ground. you cannot fight a war by remote control. that is a practical solution. from a legal standpoint, i

would say, if you are worried about the liberation of technology, we have a number of tools to prevent proliferation of all kinds of dangers. an agreement, a nuclear materials with a treaty, and with drones, we have a legal regime that says if you have a rocket system or a drone system, for a range of more than 300 kilometers, the technology on that is controlled. there are some countries where you cannot export that technology. it is a voluntary regime. it is developed countries that have worried about this proliferation. if you get a regime like that from a voluntary regime to a

binding regime, then international law has answers to deal with some of these problems. practical question, a legal question, and then a strategy question. what we do? i have profound concerns about the signature strikes. i would dial back those in the near-term until we have better intelligence on the ground. the thing that makes drones' a better option from a legal standpoint, a strategic standpoint, a tactical standpoint, is the fact that you could put firepower directly on the target, the source of the threat. that degree of discrimination is extremely useful from a legal and political and strategic standpoint. if you suddenly decide, we will not worry about the nature of the target, we will work on a profile bases, you start to undermine the legal legitimacy of your actions, the degree of the restraint you have, and you encourage this between the short-term security and central security issues we are trying to deal with, and the long-term political objectives we are trying to achieve. >> i completely agree with

christopher about the signature strikes. i would add one other point. this is the world's worst-kept secret. we are having a public meeting about the issue. drone strike are public events by their very nature. these are not things you can hide. i think it is good the obama administration is beginning to talk about this in a more open way. president obama did a recent interview where he made some of his most on the record statements about the drone program. there should be more public discussion about it. there should be more public discussion at the international level to talk about the kind of regime christopher was indicating, potentially having a binding international treaty on this issue. i would add one other thing. the secrecy that has surrounded

this is unnecessary, and i think it is counter-productive. why does it even exist? in the case of pakistan, it gave pakistan plausible deniability. wikileaks demonstrated that they were joking about lying about it. at this point, the plausible deniability does not exist. we have the yemeni president making a speech about it. i think sunlight is a great disinfectant. >> way in the back? please speak up.

>> george washington. [indiscernible] a new terrain for the geopolitics. >> i am not familiar with that event. i know the united states turned down a request from turkey for armed drones. they turned around and said, we will arm our own drones. we are right at the tipping point where a lot of countries, egypt, turkey, or others, has the technology. it is not that complicated. >> i am not personally familiar with the situation, but drones' generally reduce the cost of

military intervention. it is easier, like an iphone makes it easier to communicate with whomever you would like to communicate with. to the extent we have a proliferation drone, and to the extent that different countries around the world are using this instrument to pursue their policies, we are likely to see greater intensity in terms of the frequency of these operations. that does not matter if it is the iranians on the pakistan water, or the concerns about jihad groups, we will see these used because the costs are lower. the fact that the costs are lower means we have to have a much clearer sense of who we are targeting, what the

possible costs of taking the wrong actions are, and a public discussion about when it is appropriate to use force, and whether or not now the time is to use force. these questions read all the way back. they are not new questions. they are old questions. we need to focus on those questions and not the platform. >> let me add quickly. if there are drones that would go to egypt and the egyptian government uses them near the border, next to gossip, or israel proper, that would have to be coordinated at some point with the israelis because of the sensitivity of that border region. that would have to be worked out. let's go over here. >> the signature strikes. i am curious how much we actually know about the decision making.

and if we have any firm data as to whether they are actually less discriminant in terms of civilian casualties. it is obvious the signature strike is pretty awful. we routinely use those things to put people in jail. we saw circumstantial evidence. what do we really actually know in terms of hard facts about how these work and what the real differences are between them and the non signature strikes. >> what we know is not a great deal. kelly can make certain assumptions. my impression is the number of signatures strikes have gone

down in pakistan. there was a particularly an egregious case in march 17, 2011, which was the day after raymond davis was released. quite a number of tribal leaders were killed. it seemed to be a signature strike. my understanding is the u.s. ambassador of pakistan tried to prevent the strike. a signature strike is more likely to kill people who may not be -- it is not killing militant leaders. my impression is they declined in pakistan. i cannot tell you if they have stopped. this is the problem with discussing the program. the u.s. government does not say much about it. the best reporting on this has been done on "newsweek." when it comes to individual strikes, the only way you can infer it is by the number of

casualties. signature strides kill more people. >> that is possible. but it is an assumption. >> it is. signature strike -- my understanding is that the term does not refer to one person. it refers to a group of people doing certain things. the administration has come up with a new euphemism. tads. something to do with terrorism. signature stripe does not sound good. there is a new euphemism to describe it. i cannot say more than i just said. i just do not know. >> i do not have an inside view of the criteria they are using to operate signature strikes.

nor do i have a sense of the data. that is one area where greater transparency would be in favor of greater legitimacy. what i can talk to you about is the analogy you have drawn between signature strikes and circumstantial evidence. i can tell you if i am a prosecutor, and i have a murder, i want to prove that murder with eyewitness testimony. dna. i do not want to prove that murder with circumstantial evidence. even if i get a conviction, it will be not resonating in quite the same way. it will not be seen as legitimate. will continue to be challenged. i want a clear conviction based on facts i can verify, not based on hearsay or circumstance. a legal domain involves things like due process of law. we are not operating in the domain of u.s. law.

the stakes are even, arguably, even higher from a political standpoint. there is no trial. the target does not have the chance to say, do not drown me. i am from the town over. circumstantial evidence in that context, we are talking about war and peace, life and death, and the cost of getting a decision wrong, undermining our ability to build the relationships we need to achieve the kinds of objectives we have. stability, security and prosperity, and that is what we are aiming for. if you do that on the basis of circumstantial evidence, it will be hard to do that. it will be hard to go to the

tribal leader in that region and explain, we did it on the basis of circumstantial evidence. when i was in yemen, i interviewed a tribal leader in the south. he had put together a local militia that was literally house-to-house in their own village. they were standing up, not because the u.s. government ask them to come not because the yemeni government asked them, but because al qaeda had offended them, it was a threat to them, and they were taking responsibility in their own area. we accidentally drowned some civilians a couple of weeks ago in that district. the same leader says, i can accommodate drones' if you do not have civilian casualties. it might be helpful to me if the u.s. government did the following things. he now can go and say, we need to accommodate the drones. we are using circumstantial evidence. rather than making a positive

identification of who the adversary was and then taking them out of circulation. let's go back to the bigger question of international law. they are not there to restrain us or add bureaucracy. these are lessons that have been given to us about mistakes you can make in war and the kinds of precautions you can take a clear set of objectives. >> please speak up. >> the pakistan population in some of these areas, it is kind of like, it is not good to live there because the drones are operating.

has there been any research done or do you know whether there is more radicalization for the population of that area? >> the american foundation did their first independent poll on sensitive political issues in the tribal areas about two years ago. there were interesting. we sub contracted with a local ngo that does polling in that region. the results were interesting. there was a great deal of hostility to president obama because of the drones. there was a great deal of hostility. there was also very little support for al qaeda.

not much support for the taliban. one of the questions we asked was, if the taliban or al qaeda were on the pole in an election in your area, would you vote for them? it was less than 1%. quite a lot of hostility to the taliban. also, a real dislike of u.s. military activity in the region. as i have been thinking about the drone program, christopher mentioned this issue of national sovereignty, at the end of the day, that is the issue that makes people -- and do the thought experiment where canada had a drone program where they were taking out members of the mafia in new york with a high degree of

success. residents were also being killed in the process. we would be up in arms in canada. that is the analogy. in pakistan, it takes several different forms, from their perspective, that the united states has done for raymond davis. the osama bin laden raid, they did not get a heads up for. the killing on the border by a naval air strike, and the drone program. all of these accounts for the 9% favorability rating we have in pakistan in general. i do not think it is particularly surprising. >> what peter found in their poll in pakistan in terms of the differentiation between opposition of military intervention, and a dislike of

al qaeda and the taliban on a local level, is exactly what i saw in the interviews in yemen. we make a big deal out of al qaeda being a muslim organization and it is going back to arabia and it has all kinds of traction. yemenis are not following jihad. we need to understand the cultural differences. but this is not fertile ground for al qaeda in the way many people in the u.s. assume. the same thing with the taliban and al qaeda in pakistan. there is nothing quite like living there to convince you it is not the best form of government. the question that is really key

here is not just war and peace. they want to be able to feed their kids, build a house, built a business, they want to be able to make decisions about their own lives and political future. it is not so different for anybody around world. the way they will do that it will be different because of their culture and history and religion. but unless we get on the ground and understand these people on their own terms, unless we hear their story from the field, we will never have an appreciation of the impact our policy, our platforms and instruments of policy, has in these environments. that is why i keep coming back to the point of wars being a

human endeavor, not a technological endeavor. you have to understand the environment you are intervening in. that is a different kind of engagement than what we are undertaking today. >> thank you. we have started a twitter account. we have a question from that account. "what is the likelihood drones could be preprogrammed to deliver a weapon without having humans directly involved in the attack?" >> i am not aware of any plan by the u.s. air force or any of the other military agencies that are building drones to have them be automated, flying killing robots from "terminator 2." there is a very strong emphasis on preserving the war fighter making the decision. having pilot in the drone. if we got down the road towards

automation, i think we would have a major legal problem, but also something we should stay away from. >> it raises an interesting technological question. every lawyer i have talked to about this said the same thing. the days of hiring a hit man, but you have your own personal drone do it for you, is not that far away. it is not science fiction anymore. how you prevent that, i have no idea. i do not think you can. i think the technology will move faster than our ability to constrain it from a moral perspective. >> let me come back to that and look at a different kind of weapon.

a suicide bomber is a highly targeted weapon. we have a bunch of walls we have created around suicide bombing. we think it is immoral and illegitimate, and we frown upon this particular delivery mechanism. it is autonomous. a suicide bomber is autonomous. they are targeted. they are going after a particular target set and they know what it is beforehand. our response to that is to basically say, we will morally put this down, that it is not something we will tolerate, and we will target its and wrap it up. we respond to these things. in ways that take a while that go from the level of tactics to doctrine to policy, and then

get enrolled into law. i think this capacity to adapt to new technology, new platforms, is something human beings have been doing for the last 10,000 years. the crossbow will fundamental reason fundamentally changed land warfare in europe. we eventually figured out that it is not so much a threat anymore if you change society. it was an interesting new technology. it allowed an individual farmer, with no skill, to take out a commanding knight. it was a tremendous technological change. structure in the society changed. the relationship between the population and the leaders changed. new things grew up around the technology to keep things in

order. we are seeing the start of that. the trick is not to think that technology is going to define our future. we define our future. human beings make the decision about how we will live. we have the power to make that choice. >> as a follow-up, are we over estimating the impact of drones? just to play devil's advocate. the fighter jet, the bomber, the tank, changed the nature of warfare in the 20th century almost completely. and the atomic weapon. if you are the historian looking back on this discussion, would it seem over wrought that we are saying this is a big change? >> it is a big change in terms of the personalization of warfare. and of increasing our reach. it is why the legal and

political and moral questions we are raising are even more important now than they have ever been. we have less time to make these fundamental decisions about war and peace, liberty and security. i am optimistic. i think human beings are pretty clever to adapting to new environments and technology. >> in a sense, the boundaries between war and peace have been blurred by this weapon. look at what we are doing in somalia. it is a covert war. we have not very much direct information about it. with the use of u.s. special forces and drones, we are not

in a conventional war in somalia. we are not at peace with certain groups in somalia. drones' allow us to be in that position. >> that is right. the 20th century was a convention of warfare. we saw a similar thing happened in the nuclear standoff in the cold war. what we are seeing is a return to the norm, where there is a funny blending between peace and not peace and criminality and terrorism. all of these things are blended together in complicated ways. i think we are seeing a reversion back to the norm rather than something fundamentally new. we have built institutions, laws, systems of government that allow us to respond to these things. we have done it by making a decision about what our values are, what adversaries we cannot live without, and those we can accommodate. we are seeing that shake out not just in terms of our policy on drones and cyber warfare and some of the new technologies.

we also see it in terms of this effort that has been under way to distinguish between different forms of militants -- hard core, al qaeda on one hint that are globalize and are impossible to deal with, as opposed to local groups who might be profoundly islamic in terms of politics but do not resonate with the al qaeda's global agenda. we see efforts to draw those distinctions. all institutions are adapted, but they only will be a deficit if we understood -- only will be adapted if we understand those lessons and we are able to get into those cultures we are engaging with and understand them and what they see as an ideal future under their terms, not just by remote control could >> and also understand the problem you raised earlier with signature strikes.

>> that is exactly right. >> with that, we raised the bar to a more philosophical level, a useful discussion on a topic that is not well-discussed in washington. i am pleased to have distinguished speakers with us today, and thank you to the audience for your questions. thank you. [applause] >> the thing about eisenhower is he would never tell anybody he was going to use nuclear weapons. why is this important? in the 19 fifties, they were pretty new, and we threatened to use them, but nobody knew if he meant it. to be credible, he never told anybody. i was fascinated by that notion. talk about the loneliness of command. the use of nuclear weapons, what

could be a greater command decision than that. now, he is president, and he has an even greater level of responsibility that a time where nuclear weapons are new. soviets are getting them. we have them, the chest one or two, the we are building an arsenal. are we going to use them or not? ike use them as a tool. he embraced this weapon as a tool to avoid any war. bluff."thomas on "ike's sunday, 8:00 p.m. on sped toward >> in his first rally following the vice-presidential debate, vice president joe biden campaign with his wife jill at the university of wisconsin. this is about 40 minutes.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] ♪ have been knocking on the door i had been looking for tthe myth that leads me home ♪ >> hello, everybody. it is great to be here today. how about the kentucky debate? did joe not do great last night? [applause] >> i am so proud of him. last night, tobias of the gel that i know, somebody who truly understands -- i saw the gel that i know, somebody who truly understands what is going on and has the heart and experience to stick up for the middle-class. [applause]

somebody who showed us a clear picture of the tories in this election. it is my pleasure to turn this over to someone who has been fighting hard for the kind of america that we want to live in. somebody that is not afraid to roll up his sleeves and do the hard work to keep moving this country forward. my husband, our vice president, joe biden. [applause] >> hello, univ. of wisconsin. good to see you all. [applause] good to see you all. with your permission, i would like to ask a guy that can grow on, are you pass, r still back there? i needed a passport to get into town. i know this is his town.

chancellor, let me begin by thanking you. i know you have been waiting. you all go to university. you did not have to wait more than 20 minutes for a school professor, she is, but i'm not. thank you for waiting. and in sari we are late in getting out here. i want to recognize one of the finest guys i ever worked with in all of my years in the united states senate, and one of the people, when you say his name in washington, and here, i'm sure, when you say the name herb kohl, you say integrity. [applause] herb, your presence is going to be missed, the tivoli by me. we served together a long time of the same committees. whenever i was not quite sure of what i was doing, i would call

him aside. this man has a lot of wisdom. i will miss it. [applause] >> my name is joe biden. i am jill biden's husband. that is how i am down in washington. -- i am known in washington. folks, i'm sure as you observed last night, we had a little bit of a debate. [applause] with a gentleman, and he is a gentleman, a gentleman from wisconsin, congressman paul ryan. i hardly agree with anything he says, but i think he is a decent guy, and he has a beautiful family, and is a great husband and father for that, and great

respect for him. [applause] you know, anybody who watched that debate, i do not think there is any doubt that the congressmen and die, governor romney and the president, we have a fundamentally different vision for america, and a fundamentally different values said. the fact is that the differences we have our profound. they are as profound than any differences in any presidential campaign that i have observed or been involved in. the truth is i think people were listening. if they were, they know what some of those differences are, and how they can fundamentally affect the direction of this country. one of those areas was in the area of afghanistan. and i made it clear that we are leaving afghanistan in 2014.

[applause] we have trained over 300 afghan military personnel. it is their responsibility to step up for their defense of their nation. we went for al-qaida, we went for bin laden, we accomplished that goal, and now this time. they are willing. it is time for them to stand up as we draw down. congressman ryan made it very clear that governor romney has a different view. although he says he thinks we should get out in 2014, although he says that makes sense, he says we should never have announced that, and it had we not, the afghans would never have stepped up. and, when asked if we get out, he said it depends.

ladies, it depends on nothing other than a date. it is time for the afghanis to take care of their own responsibilities. like almost everything, it depends on which day you ask him the question. it depends on the circumstances. it was not just on foreign policy it depends. it was also their attitude about what constitutes a fair tax code, what is a reasonable budget, whether or not even to cut the budget. congressman ryan is saying although they passed the budget in the house which did not become law, which cut 19%, eviscerating education, he said that is not a cut, it is just a smaller increase. i want to tell that all to your

parents when they no longer take a $2,500 tax credit next year if they were to win. tell that to the kids who were kicked off early education. folks' income taxes, if you go back and take a look, paul rye and saying his budget really is not a budget cut. that is like governor romney standing on unemployment lines and saying to a guy, i did not outsource your job, i offshored it. [laughter] [applause] that is the distinction they make. when i point out that governor romney, a great businessman, did it the bain way, and outsourced jobs, they said that is not what he is doing. when i pointed out that the governor, as governor as

massachusetts, sent a call service that people in massachusetts would pick up the phone and call to see whether or not they are entitled to unemployment benefits, they got somebody in asia. they outsourced that. imagine the idea, the feeling of a guy calling, saying, how about my unemployment check, knowing he could have the job that the person he is calling has. when i said that, he said biden does not understand. that is not outsourcing. that is offshoring. it's unusual distinctions my friends make these days that are more than misleading. on taxes, they say you heard last night we raised taxes 99 million times or whatever it was on middle-class people and small business. even romney admitted we have

not raised taxes. we have cut taxes for the middle class by $3,600. now we want to make sure that we make the tax cuts for the middle class that are due to expire in january permanent, make that permanent. you know what their answer is? they say no. it is literally true. this is what they said we will not make a tax cut for the middle class permanent unless you agree, obama and biden, to extend the tax cut for the very wealthy. we're not going to let the middle class have it unless the wealthy continue. let me put this in perspective. that tax cut cost $1 trillion for the next 10 years.

$800 billion of it goes to people with a minimum income of $1 million. $500 billion goes to 120,000 families making an average of $8 million a year, while they eviscerate education, while they refuse to allow tax cuts to go forward for the middle class. ladies and gentlemen, only a man who answers a question on "60 minutes" about two weeks ago, when asked the question, he said, do you think it is fair that you pay only 14% of your $20 million in income, when someone making $50,000 a year pay